ReviewCaspian journal of internal medicine2022
Diagnostic sensitivity of RT-PCR assays on nasopharyngeal specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Caspian journal of internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Cross-sectional Cranial CT Imaging Findings and Patterns in Clinically Diagnosed COVID-19 Cases in a Tertiary Referral Center.Acta medica Philippina · 2025Article
- Article
- Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence from repeated pooled testing: application to Swiss routine data.Epidemiology and infection · 2024Article
- Economic Evaluation of Wastewater Surveillance Combined with Clinical COVID-19 Screening Tests, Japan.Emerging infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Detection of Specific RNA Targets by Multimerization.Biochemistry. Biokhimiia · 2023Article
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
Background: Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the current standard of reference in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In outpatient clinical practice, nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR testing is still the most common procedure. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the sensitivity of RT-PCR nasopharyngeal assays. Methods: We searched three databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, using a comprehensive strategy. Studies investigating the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR nasopharyngeal assays in adults were included. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed trial quality independently. Pooled sensitivity and its confidence interval were computed using the meta package in R. Results: Thirteen studies were found eligible for the inclusion in the systematic review. Out of these, 25 different sub-studies were identified and included in the meta-analysis, which reported the sensitivities of 25 different nasopharyngeal RT-PCR assays. Finally, the overall pooled sensitivity resulted 89% (95% CI, 85.4 to 91.8%). Conclusion: Our study suggests that RT-PCR assays on nasopharyngeal specimens have a substantial sensitivity for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.
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.