ReviewMicromachines2022
Conventional and Microfluidic Methods for the Detection of Nucleic Acid of SARS-CoV-2.
Review in Micromachines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A SAW-Based Programmable Controlled RNA Detecting Device: Rapid In Situ Cytolysis-RNA Capture-RNA Release-PCR in One Mini Chamber.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Advances in Nucleic Acid Assays for Infectious Disease: The Role of Microfluidic Technology.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- A rapid point-of-care population-scale dipstick assay to identify and differentiate SARS-CoV-2 variants in COVID-19-positive patients.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Application of microfluidic technologies on COVID-19 diagnosis and drug discovery.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2023Review
- Biomedical Applications of Microfluidic Devices: A Review.Biosensors · 2022Review
- Microrobots in Micromachines.Micromachines · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) played a crucial role in containing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the epidemic. The gold standard technique, the quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) technique, is currently used by the government and medical boards to detect SARS-CoV-2. Due to the limitations of this technology, it is not capable of meeting the needs of large-scale rapid detection. To solve this problem, many new techniques for detecting nucleic acids of SARS-CoV-2 have been reported. Therefore, a review that systematically and comprehensively introduces and compares various detection technologies is needed. In this paper, we not only review the traditional NAT but also provide an overview of microfluidic-based NAT technologies and summarize and discuss the characteristics and development prospects of these techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.