ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2022
The Performance of Lateral Flow Tests in the Age of the Omicron: A Rapid Systematic Review.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Machine Learning-Based Web Tool for the Severity Prediction of COVID-19.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2024Article
- Development of DNA-Based Lateral Flow Assay for Detection of LDLR Gene Mutation for Familial Hypercholesterolemia.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2024Article
- Laboratory Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP Test.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Novel Approach for Identification of Basic and Effective Reproduction Numbers Illustrated with COVID-19.Viruses · 2023Article
- Sensitivity of rapid antigen tests for Omicron subvariants of SARS-CoV-2.Journal of medical virology · 2023Article
- Article
- Effect of COVID-19 Vaccination on the In-Hospital Prognosis of Patients Admitted during Delta and Omicron Waves in Italy.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Relationship between steroid use and superinfections in SARS-CoV-2 patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis.Infection ecology & epidemiology · 2023Review
- Article
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
Prompt detection and isolation of COVID-19 cases is vital for preventing further viral transmission, and lateral flow or rapid antigen tests have been an important diagnostic tool in this pandemic. However, concerns have emerged regarding the sensitivity of these devices for the new BA.1, BA.2, and BA.4/5 omicron variants, which have greater transmissibility and extensive mutations in its spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins. N protein is an important target protein for existing lateral flow devices. This paper therefore aimed to provide a rapid review of available literature on the performance of the lateral flow tests for detecting the omicron coronavirus variant. A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, OVID Medline, and Google Scholar found six published studies and four preprints investigating the performance of existing lateral flow devices for the omicron variant, as compared to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. Overall, it appears that the devices have poorer performance for the omicron variant and when testing samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values greater than 25 and in asymptomatic individuals. As most available data were preliminary and had small sample sizes, it is recommended that these data be further studied to better inform and adapt our public health responses.
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.