ReviewRSC advances2022
The role of electrochemical biosensors in SARS-CoV-2 detection: a bibliometrics-based analysis and review.
Review in RSC advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Marketing Strategies in Nanomaterials for Sensor Applications: Bridging Lab to Market.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2025Review
- Biosensor Technologies for Water Quality: Detection of Emerging Contaminants and Pathogens.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Protein Stacking on the APTES-Functionalized Pyrochlore BiACS applied materials & interfaces · 2025Article
- Faradaic Impedimetric Immunosensor for Label-Free Point-of-Care Detection of COVID-19 Antibodies Using Gold-Interdigitated Electrode Array.Biosensors · 2023Article
- Hotspots and trends of electrochemical biosensor technology: a bibliometric analysis from 2003 to 2023.RSC advances · 2023Review
- Strategies in the optimization of DNA hybridization conditions and its role in electrochemical detection of dengue virus (DENV) using response surface methodology (RSM).RSC advances · 2023Article
- The Value of GeneXpert MTB/RIF for Detection in Tuberculosis: A Bibliometrics-Based Analysis and Review.Journal of analytical methods in chemistry · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The global pandemic of COVID-19, which began in late 2019, has resulted in extremely high morbidity and severe mortality worldwide, with important implications for human health, international trade, and national politics. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is the primary pathogen causing COVID-19. Analytical chemistry played an important role in this global epidemic event, and detection of SARS-CoV-2 even became a part of daily life. Analytical chemists have devoted much effort and enthusiasm to this event, and different analytical techniques have shown very rapid development. Electrochemical biosensors are highly efficient, sensitive, and cost-effective and have been used to detect many highly pathogenic viruses long before this event. However, another fact is that electrochemical biosensors are not the technology of choice for most detection applications. This review describes for the first time the role played by electrochemical biosensors in SARS-CoV-2 detection from a bibliometric perspective. This paper analyzed 254 relevant research papers up to June 2022. The contributions of different countries and institutions to this topic were analyzed. Keyword analysis was used to explore different methodological attempts of electrochemical detection techniques. More importantly, we are trying to find an answer to the question: do electrochemical biosensors have the potential to become a genuinely employable detection technology in an outbreak of infectious disease?
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.