SynthesisBMJ open2022
A systematic review of strategies adopted to scale up COVID-19 testing in low-, middle- and high-income countries.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the risk of dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome in Nepalese Leprosy Patients via HLA-B* 13:01 screening using real-time PCR and comparative meta-analysis of international data.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Global perspectives on challenges, coping strategies, and future preparedness of nursing home staff during COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- A Multi-Provincial Clinical Evaluation of the PANBIO™ COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Device in South Africa.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Lessons Learned: Defining the Right Specifications for Diagnostics in Outbreak Situations.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- Feasibility of molecular-based testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2-screening in workplaces: a systematic review and reporting checklist.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Qualitative assessment of the scale-up of COVID-19 testing network in Armenia: turning adversities into opportunities.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of wastewater-based environmental surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in Blantyre, Malawi and Kathmandu, Nepal: A model-based study.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination rates in countries with different income levels: a panel analysis.BMC public health · 2024Article
- A Cross-Border Biorisk Toolkit for Healthcare Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Assessing time requirements of two models of SARS-CoV-2 screening and testing in routine healthcare services in Kenya and Cameroon: a descriptive study.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Wastewater-based surveillance models for COVID-19: A focused review on spatio-temporal models.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies: A scoping review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Review
- Ensuring diagnostic testing accuracy for patient care and public health- COVID-19 testing scale-up from an EQA provider's perspective.PLOS global public health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe undertook a systematic review of strategies adopted to scale up COVID-19 testing in countries across income levels to identify successful approaches and facilitate learning.
methodsScholarly articles in English from PubMed, Google scholar and Google search engine describing strategies used to increase COVID-19 testing in countries were reviewed. Deductive analysis to allocate relevant text from the reviewed publications/reports to the a priori themes was done. MAIN
resultsThe review covered 32 countries, including 11 high-income, 2 upper-middle-income, 13 lower-middle-income and 6 low-income countries. Most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) increased the number of laboratories available for testing and deployed sample collection and shipment to the available laboratories. The high-income countries (HICs) that is, South Korea, Germany, Singapore and USA developed molecular diagnostics with accompanying regulatory and legislative framework adjustments to ensure the rapid development and use of the tests. HICs like South Korea leveraged existing manufacturing systems to develop tests, while the LMICs leveraged existing national disease control programmes (HIV, tuberculosis, malaria) to increase testing. Continent-wide, African Centres for Disease Control and Prevention-led collaborations increased testing across most African countries through building capacity by providing testing kits and training.
conclusionStrategies taken appear to reflect the existing systems or economies of scale that a particular country could leverage. LMICs, for example, drew on the infectious disease control programmes already in place to harness expertise and laboratory capacity for COVID-19 testing. There however might have been strategies adopted by other countries but were never published and thus did not appear anywhere in the searched databases.
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.