ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2024
At-home testing for respiratory viruses: a minireview of the current landscape.
Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analytical comparison of over-the-counter multiplex tests for influenza A, influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Assessing the Oral Microbiome in Women of Reproductive Age: A Narrative Review.Clinics and practice · 2025Review
- Pathogen-Specific Electrochemical Real-Time LAMP Detection Using Universal Solid-Phase Probes on Carbon Electrodes.ACS sensors · 2025Article
- Increasing Access To Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing: The Promise of Point-of-Care and Over-the-Counter Tests.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2025Review
- Trends in Respiratory Pathogen Testing at US Children's Hospitals.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Isothermal nucleic acid amplification for monitoring hand-foot-and-mouth disease: current status and future implications.Mikrochimica acta · 2024Review
- An Outbreak of Respiratory Viral Infections in a Professional Ice Hockey Team.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The landscape of at-home testing using over-the-counter (OTC) tests has been evolving over the last decade. The United States Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization rule has been in effect since the early 2000s, and it was widely employed during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic to authorize antigen and nucleic acid detection tests for use in central laboratories as well as OTC. During the pandemic, the first at-home tests for respiratory viruses became available for consumer use, which opened the door for additional respiratory virus OTC tests. Concerns may exist regarding the public's ability to properly collect samples, perform testing, interpret results, and report results to public health authorities. However, favorable comparison studies between OTC testing and centralized laboratory test results suggest that OTC testing may have a place in healthcare, and it is likely here to stay. This mini-review of OTC tests for viral respiratory diseases will briefly cover the regulatory and reimbursement environment, current OTC test availability, as well as the advantages and limitations of OTC tests.
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.