ReviewNano convergence2024
Advances in nanobiosensors during the COVID-19 pandemic and future perspectives for the post-COVID era.
Review in Nano convergence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simultaneous detection of SARS-CoV-2 proteins and nucleic acids by coupling PNIPAM with circle-to-circle amplification.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2026Article
- Organ-on-chip (OoC) and nano-biomaterials: next generation of precision oral and dental healthcare research.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Graphene-Based Sensors and Biosensors Fabricated via Pulsed Laser Deposition for Chemical and Biological Threat Detection: A Comprehensive Roadmap.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Strengthening patient safety through biosafety and infection prevention measures during COVID-19: a policy and practice review.Frontiers in health services · 2026Review
- Material-based neuroimaging and biomarker detection for central nervous system disorder.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Review
- Optical nanomaterial-based detection of biomarkers in liquid biopsy.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The unprecedented threat of the highly contagious virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes exponentially increased infections of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), highlights the weak spots of the current diagnostic toolbox. In the midst of catastrophe, nanobiosensors offer a new opportunity as an alternative tool to fill a gap among molecular tests, rapid antigen tests, and serological tests. Nanobiosensors surpass the potential of antigen tests because of their enhanced sensitivity, thus enabling us to see antigens as stable and easy-to-access targets. During the first three years of the COVID-19 pandemic, a substantial number of studies have reported nanobiosensors for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens. The number of articles on nanobiosensors and SARS-CoV-2 exceeds the amount of nanobiosensor research on detecting previous infectious diseases, from influenza to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. This unprecedented publishing pace also implies the significance of SARS-CoV-2 and the present pandemic. In this review, 158 studies reporting nanobiosensors for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antigens are collected to discuss the current challenges of nanobiosensors using the criteria of point-of-care (POC) diagnostics along with COVID-specific issues. These advances and lessons during the pandemic pave the way for preparing for the post-COVID era and potential upcoming infectious diseases.
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.