Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 593

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnostic Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome–Related Coronavirus 2: A Narrative Review

Open access
Cheng, Matthew P., Papenburg, Jesse, Desjardins, Michaël, Kanjilal, Sanjat, Quach, Caroline, Libman, Michael, Dittrich, Sabine, Yansouni, Cedric P.·2020·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Diagnostic testing to identify persons infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is central to control the global pandemic of COVID-19 that began in late 2019. In a few countries, the use of diagnostic testing on a massive scale has been a cornerstone of successful containment strategies. In contrast, the United States, hampered by limited testing capacity, has prioritized testing for specific groups of persons. Real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-based assays performed in a laboratory on respiratory specimens are the reference standard for COVID-19 diagnostics. However, point-of-care technologies and serologic immunoassays are rapidly emerging. Although excellent tools exist for the diagnosis of symptomatic patients in well-equipped laboratories, important gaps remain in screening asymptomatic persons in the incubation phase, as well as in the accurate determination of live viral shedding during convalescence to inform decisions to end isolation. Many affluent countries have encountered challenges in test delivery and specimen collection that have inhibited rapid increases in testing capacity. These challenges may be even greater in low-resource settings. Urgent clinical and public health needs currently drive an unprecedented global effort to increase testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, the authors review the current array of tests for SARS-CoV-2, highlight gaps in current diagnostic capacity, and propose potential solutions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/m20-1301

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 48 references

Cited by

See all 593

Metadata

Authors
Cheng, M. P., Papenburg, J., Desjardins, M., Kanjilal, S., Quach, C., Libman, M., Dittrich, S., & Yansouni, C. P.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2020-06-02
Volume
172
Issue
11
Pages
726-734
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W3016053819
Cited by
593
References
48
FWCI
16.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diagnostic Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome–Related Coronavirus 2: A Narrative Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/m20-1301
The paper
Cheng, M. P., Papenburg, J., Desjardins, M., Kanjilal, S., Quach, C., Libman, M., Dittrich, S., & Yansouni, C. P. (2020). Diagnostic Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome–Related Coronavirus 2: A Narrative Review. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/m20-1301

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.