Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39273275›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2024

RT-qPCR Testing and Performance Metrics in the COVID-19 Era.

Stephen A Bustin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

1 author.

Stephen A BustinMedical Technology Research Centre, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford CM1 1SQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1870-6098

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the crucial role of diagnostic testing in managing infectious diseases, particularly through the use of reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) tests. RT-qPCR has been pivotal in detecting and quantifying viral RNA, enabling the identification and management of SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, despite its widespread use, there remains a notable gap in understanding fundamental diagnostic metrics such as sensitivity and specificity among many scientists and healthcare practitioners. This gap is not merely academic; it has profound implications for interpreting test results, making public health decisions, and affecting patient outcomes. This review aims to clarify the distinctions between laboratory- and field-based metrics in the context of RT-qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 and summarise the global efforts that led to the development and optimisation of these tests during the pandemic. It is intended to enhance the understanding of these fundamental concepts among scientists and healthcare professionals who may not be familiar with the nuances of diagnostic test evaluation. Such knowledge is crucial for accurately interpreting test results, making informed public health decisions, and ultimately managing infectious disease outbreaks more effectively.

Indexed as

COVID-19RNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingCOVID-19 TestingHumansPandemicsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityRNA, ViralCOVID-19diagnostic testingRT-qPCRSARS-CoV-2sensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID39273275
PMCPMC11394961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.