ReviewTrends in analytical chemistry : TRAC2022
Advances in rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 by mass spectrometry.
Review in Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- EFEMP1-Mediated Regulation of Choroidal Vascular Dysfunction in Myopia: Insights Into the FOXO3/VEGFA Pathway as a Therapeutic Target.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- The Impact of Serum/Plasma Proteomics on SARS-CoV-2 Diagnosis and Prognosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Development of a rapid and specific MALDI-TOF mass spectrometric assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection.Clinical proteomics · 2023Article
- Lithographic SERS Aptasensor for Ultrasensitive Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Biological Fluids.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- NMR-based metabolomics: Where are we now and where are we going?Progress in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 has already been lasting for more than two years and it has been severely affecting the whole world. Still, detection of SARS-CoV-2 remains the frontline approach to combat the pandemic, and the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based method is the well recognized detection method for the enormous analytical demands. However, the RT-PCR method typically takes a relatively long time, and can produce false positive and false negative results. Mass spectrometry (MS) is a very commonly used technique with extraordinary sensitivity, specificity and speed, and can produce qualitative and quantitative information of various analytes, which cannot be achieved by RT-PCR. Since the pandemic outbreak, various mass spectrometric approaches have been developed for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2, including the LC-MS/MS approaches that could allow analysis of several hundred clinical samples per day with one MS system, MALDI-MS approaches that could directly analyze clinical samples for the detection, and efforts for the on-site detection with portable devices. In this review, these mass spectrometric approaches were summarized, and their pros and cons as well as further development were also discussed.
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.