ArticleTropical medicine and infectious disease2023
The Performance of Diagnostic Tests for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the South African Population: A Scoping Review.
Article in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
To determine the performance and reliability of diagnostic tests for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection in South Africa, we conducted a scoping review to identify published studies undertaken in the English language from March 2020 to August 2022 that evaluated the performance of antigen- and antibody-based diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 in South Africa. We identified 17 relevant peer-reviewed articles; six reported on SARS-CoV-2 gene and/or antigen detection whilst 11 reported on antibody detection. Of the SARS-CoV-2 gene and/or antigen-based tests, sensitivity ranged from 40% to 100%, whilst for the antibody-based tests, sensitivity ranged from 13% to 100%. All tests evaluated were highly dependent on the stage of infection and the timing of sample collection. This scoping review demonstrated that no single SARS-CoV-2 gene and/or antigen- or antibody-based assay was sufficiently sensitive and specific simultaneously. The sensitivity of the tests was highly dependent on the timing of sample collection with respect to SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the case of SARS-CoV-2 gene and/or antigen detection, the earlier the collection of samples, the greater the sensitivity, while antibody detection tests showed better sensitivity using samples from later stages of infection.
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.