Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36705912›Full record

ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2023

SARS-CoV-2 Testing Strategies in the Diagnosis and Management of COVID-19 Patients in Low-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.

Yuh Ping Chong, Kay Weng Choy, Christian Doerig, Chiao Xin Lim

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yuh Ping ChongSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, 3083, Australia. yuh.ping.chong@rmit.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9596-3242
Kay Weng ChoyNorthern Pathology Victoria, Northern Health, Epping, VIC, 3076, Australia.
Christian DoerigSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, 3083, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3188-094X
Chiao Xin LimSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, 3083, Australia. chiao.xin.lim@rmit.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5543-8411
RMIT University · AUNorthern Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accuracy of diagnostic laboratory tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can impact downstream clinical procedures in managing and controlling the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To assess the effectiveness of laboratory tools for managing COVID-19 patients in low-income countries (LICs), we systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Scopus and CINHAL databases for reports published between January 2020 and June 2022. We found that 22 of 1303 articles reported the performance of various SARS-CoV-2 detection tools across 10 LICs. These tools were (1) real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR); (2) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP); (3) rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs); (4) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); and (5) dot-blot immunoassay. The detection of COVID-19 is largely divided into two main streams-direct virus (antigen) detection and serology (immunoglobulin)-based detection. Point-of-care testing using antigen-based RDTs is preferred in LICs because of cost effectiveness and simplicity in the test procedures. The nucleic acid amplification technology (RT-PCR and RT-LAMP) has the highest diagnostic performance among the available tests, but it is not broadly used in this context due to costs and shortage of facilities/trained staff. The serology-based test method is affected by antibody interferences and varying amounts of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins expressed at different stages of disease onset. We further discuss the effectiveness and shortcomings of each of these tools in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19. Using the LICs as the study model, our findings highlight ways to improve the quality and turnaround time of COVID-19 testing in resource-constrained settings, notably through local/international collaborative efforts to refine the molecular-based or immunoassay-based testing technologies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Clinical Laboratory TechniquesCOVID-19 TestingHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID36705912
PMCPMC9880944
OpenAlexW4318203715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.