ArticleAnalytica chimica acta2023
A microfluidic biosensor architecture for the rapid detection of COVID-19.
Article in Analytica chimica acta, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiplex on-chip detection ofFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Nanotechnology-based theranostic and prophylactic approaches against SARS-CoV-2.Immunologic research · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The lack of enough diagnostic capacity to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) has been one of the major challenges in the control the 2019 COVID pandemic; this led to significant delay in prompt treatment of COVID-19 patients or accurately estimate disease situation. Current methods for the diagnosis of SARS-COV-2 infection on clinical specimens (e.g. nasal swabs) include polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based methods, such as real-time reverse transcription (rRT) PCR, real-time reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (rRT-LAMP), and immunoassay based methods, such as rapid antigen test (RAT). These conventional PCR methods excel in sensitivity and specificity but require a laboratory setting and typically take up to 6 h to obtain the results whereas RAT has a low sensitivity (typically at least 3000 TCID50/ml) although with the results with 15 min. We have developed a robust micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) based impedance biosensor fit for rapid and accurate detection of SARS-COV-2 of clinical samples in the field with minimal training. The biosensor consisted of three regions that enabled concentrating, trapping, and sensing the virus present in low quantities with high selectivity and sensitivity in 40 min using an electrode coated with a specific SARS-COV-2 antibody cross-linker mixture. Changes in the impedance value due to the binding of the SARS-COV-2 antigen to the antibody will indicate positive or negative result. The testing results showed that the biosensor's limit of detection (LoD) for detection of inactivated SARS-COV-2 antigen in phosphate buffer saline (PBS) was as low as 50 TCID50/ml. The biosensor specificity was confirmed using the influenza virus while the selectivity was confirmed using influenza polyclonal sera. Overall, the results showed that the biosensor is able to detect SARS-COV-2 in clinical samples (swabs) in 40 min with a sensitivity of 26 TCID50/ml.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.