ReviewBiosensors2026
Research Advances and Future Perspectives of Point-of-Care Detection Technologies and Biosensors for Mosquito-Borne Viruses.
Review in Biosensors, 2026. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Mosquito-borne viruses, including dengue, Zika and chikungunya viruses, place a substantial burden on diagnostic services, especially where molecular laboratories are inaccessible or slow to return results. Point-of-care biosensors could reduce turnaround times and bring testing closer to patients in primary care, outbreak response, and field settings. This review critically examines nucleic acid amplification, CRISPR-assisted assays, lateral-flow platforms, microfluidic systems, electrochemical and optical biosensors, paper-based devices, and smartphone-enabled readouts. These technologies are evaluated in terms of sample preparation, analytical sensitivity and specificity, matrix interference, multiplexing, workflow integration, cost, and clinical validation. Overall, nucleic-acid-amplification and CRISPR-assisted platforms often achieve low reported detection limits under controlled conditions; lateral-flow and paper-based devices offer relatively simple and minimally instrumented workflows; and microfluidic, electrochemical, and smartphone-enabled systems support increasing levels of workflow integration, quantitative readout, and connectivity. However, few platforms currently integrate these advantages into a fully integrated and clinically validated "sample-to-result" workflow. Due to sample heterogeneity, viral strains, reference methods, assay conditions, and disparities in reporting practices, conducting meaningful cross-study comparisons remains challenging. Limited comparisons and insufficient prospective clinical and field validation further restrict the assessment of practical diagnostic utility. Therefore, strong analytical performance alone should not be interpreted as evidence of clinical validity. Priority directions include unified definitions of performance and reporting units, standardized validation protocols and external quality assessment, prospective multi-site evaluation using representative populations and specimens, and earlier consideration of manufacturing scalability, reagent stability, quality systems, and applicable regulatory requirements. Future platforms should integrate simplified sample preparation, multiplex detection, objective digital or AI-assisted interpretation, and secure connectivity while demonstrating measurable benefits for patient management and outbreak surveillance.
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.