ReviewFuture virology2022
Molecular and antigen tests, and sample types for diagnosis of COVID-19: a review.
Review in Future virology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Economic Evaluation of COVID-19 Screening Tests and Surveillance Strategies in Low-Income, Middle-Income, and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Rapid Diagnostics for Distinguishing Bacterial and Viral Infections: A Review of Technologies, Clinical Utility, and Stewardship Implications.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Annexing isothermal nucleotide amplification enables probe-guided amplification and direct detection at ambient temperature.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Integrated Antigenic and Nucleic Acid Detection in Single Virions and Extracellular Vesicles with Viral Content.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Post-market surveillance of six COVID-19 point-of-care tests using pre-Omicron and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Modified streptavidin-biotin based lateral flow test strip for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 S1 antigen in saliva samples.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Critical Needs for Integrated Surveillance: Wastewater-Based and Clinical Epidemiology in Evolving Scenarios with Lessons Learned from SARS-CoV-2.Food and environmental virology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laboratory tests seeking to improve detection of COVID-19 have been widely developed by laboratories and commercial companies. This review provides an overview of molecular and antigen tests, presents the sensitivity and specificity for 329 assays that have received US FDA Emergency Use Authorization and evaluates six sample collection methods - nasal, nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal swabs, saliva, blood and stool. Molecular testing is preferred for diagnosis of COVID-19, but negative results do not always rule out the presence of infection, especially when clinical suspicion is high. Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 88.1 to 100% and 88 to 100%, respectively. Antigen tests may be more easy to use and rapid. However, they have reported a wide range of detection sensitivities from 16.7 to 85%, which may potentially yield many false-negative results.
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.