ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy Tests of COVID-19.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive performance of image processing techniques in the diagnosis of bone metastasis: A meta-analysis of a confusion matrix.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Measuring Humoral Immune Responses to SARS-CoV-2: A Comprehensive Review of Serological Assays.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Automated Detection of COVID-19 Using Machine Learning Analysis of White Blood Cell Flow Cytometry Images.Cureus · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review of lateral flow assays in rapid livestock and poultry disease diagnostics.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2026Article
- In Vitro Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Authorized in the United States and Approved in Japan.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Environmentally Safe Synthesis of Gold Nanoparticles for Antigen Detection in CLIA System.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Diagnostic value comparative analysis of the commercial kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Iranian journal of microbiology · 2025Review
- Pituitary Apoplexy in a Child with Short Stature and Possible Recent SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluating Rabies Test Accuracy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Human and Canine Diagnostic Methods.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Biosensors and Bioassays for the Medical Detection ofCurrent medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- Recombinant proteins as promising antigens applied to the immunodiagnosis of Chagas disease: a scoping review.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to evaluate the reliability of coronavirus disease diagnostic tests in 2019 (COVID-19). This article seeks to describe the scientific discoveries made because of diagnostic tests conducted in recent years during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Between 2020 and 2021, searches for published papers on the COVID-19 diagnostic were made in the PubMed database. Ninety-nine scientific articles that satisfied the requirements were analyzed and included in the meta-analysis, and the specificity and sensitivity of the diagnostic accuracy were assessed. When compared to serological tests such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), and chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA), molecular tests such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) performed better in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, the area under the curve restricted to the false-positive rates (AUC
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.