Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (830 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Diagnosis of covid-19 by assaying bodily fluids or tissues for the presence of covid-19 antibodies, sars-cov-2 antigens or the viral rna of sars-cov-2.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: COVID 19 Testing; COVID-19 Testings; Testing, COVID-19; 2019-nCoV Testing; 2019 nCoV Testing; 2019-nCoV Testings; Testing, 2019-nCoV; SARS Coronavirus 2 Testing.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Clinical Laboratory Techniques
- Narrower topics
- COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing; COVID-19 Serological Testing
Related concepts
- Covid-19
- Sars-Cov-2
- Viral Rna
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 13,391 records tagged with the MeSH heading “COVID-19 Testing” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 13,391 of them (100.0%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2020 onward with 13,391 records.
Reviews account for 1,407 records (10.5%) and meta-analyses for 180. Randomized controlled trials number 87 (0.6%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 | 0 |
| 2010-2019 | 0 |
| 2020 onward | 13,391 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 1,407 | 10.5% |
| Meta-analyses | 180 | 1.3% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 87 | 0.6% |
Method: PubMed query "COVID-19 Testing"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.
Reading the evidence in diagnostics and medical technology
A test or device is judged by how well it detects a condition, how often it gives false alarms or misses cases, and whether using it improves outcomes for people. Accuracy depends on who is tested and how common the condition is, so a test that performs well in a specialist hospital can perform differently in the community. Check the reference standard, the population studied, the sensitivity and specificity and whether results were confirmed in a separate group.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review of COVID-19 testing and diagnostic methods | 2022 | Review article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 149 | cc by PMID 35390680 · DOI · PMC8970625 |
| Portable real-time colorimetric LAMP-device for rapid quantitative detection of nucleic acids in crude samples | 2022 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 92 | cc by PMID 35260588 · DOI · PMC8904468 |
| Barriers to and strategies to address COVID-19 testing hesitancy: a rapid scoping review | 2022 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 82 | cc by PMID 35422031 · DOI · PMC9008387 |
| Effectiveness of voluntary PCR testing against COVID-19 spread in remote Japanese islands | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 0 | cc by PMID 41873171 · DOI · PMC13100917 |
Review of COVID-19 testing and diagnostic methods [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- More than six billion tests for COVID-19 has been already performed in the world.
- Closing excerpt
- The review has a bioanalytical chemistry prospective, but it may be interesting for a broader circle of readers who are interested in understanding and improvement of COVID-19 testing, helping eventually to leave COVID-19 pandemic in the past.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (229 words)
More than six billion tests for COVID-19 has been already performed in the world. The testing for SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2) virus and corresponding human antibodies is essential not only for diagnostics and treatment of the infection by medical institutions, but also as a pre-requisite for major semi-normal economic and social activities such as international flights, off line work and study in offices, access to malls, sport and social events. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, time to results and cost per test are essential parameters of those tests and even minimal improvement in any of them may have noticeable impact on life in the many countries of the world. We described, analyzed and compared methods of COVID-19 detection, while representing their parameters in 22 tables. Also, we compared test performance of some FDA approved test kits with clinical performance of some non-FDA approved methods just described in scientific literature. RT-PCR still remains a golden standard in detection of the virus, but a pressing need for alternative less expensive, more rapid, point of care methods is evident. Those methods that may eventually get developed to satisfy this need are explained, discussed, quantitatively compared. The review has a bioanalytical chemistry prospective, but it may be interesting for a broader circle of readers who are interested in understanding and improvement of COVID-19 testing, helping eventually to leave COVID-19 pandemic in the past.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 35390680 · DOI · PMC8970625
Portable real-time colorimetric LAMP-device for rapid quantitative detection of nucleic acids in crude samples [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Loop-mediated isothermal amplification is known for its high sensitivity, specificity and tolerance to inhibiting-substances.
- Closing excerpt
- The device high technology-readiness-level makes it a suitable platform for performing any colorimetric LAMP assay; moreover, its simple and inexpensive fabrication holds promise for fast deployment and application in global diagnostics.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (191 words)
Loop-mediated isothermal amplification is known for its high sensitivity, specificity and tolerance to inhibiting-substances. In this work, we developed a device for performing real-time colorimetric LAMP combining the accuracy of lab-based quantitative analysis with the simplicity of point-of-care testing. The device innovation lies on the use of a plastic tube anchored vertically on a hot surface while the side walls are exposed to a mini camera able to take snapshots of the colour change in real time during LAMP amplification. Competitive features are the rapid analysis (< 30 min), quantification over 9 log-units, crude sample-compatibility (saliva, tissue, swabs), low detection limit (< 5 copies/reaction), smartphone-operation, fast prototyping (3D-printing) and ability to select the dye of interest (Phenol red, HNB). The device's clinical utility is demonstrated in cancer mutations-analysis during the detection of 0.01% of BRAF-V600E-to-wild-type molecules from tissue samples and COVID-19 testing with 97% (Ct < 36.8) and 98% (Ct < 30) sensitivity when using extracted RNA and nasopharyngeal-swabs, respectively. The device high technology-readiness-level makes it a suitable platform for performing any colorimetric LAMP assay; moreover, its simple and inexpensive fabrication holds promise for fast deployment and application in global diagnostics.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 35260588 · DOI · PMC8904468
Barriers to and strategies to address COVID-19 testing hesitancy: a rapid scoping review [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundTesting is a foundational component of any COVID-19 management strategy; however, emerging evidence suggests that barriers and hesitancy to COVID-19 testing may affect uptake or participation and often these are multiple and intersecting factors that may vary across population groups.
- Closing excerpt
- Further research to test the efficacy of these strategies is needed to better support testing for COVID-19 by addressing testing hesitancy as part of the broader COVID-19 public health response.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (256 words)
BackgroundTesting is a foundational component of any COVID-19 management strategy; however, emerging evidence suggests that barriers and hesitancy to COVID-19 testing may affect uptake or participation and often these are multiple and intersecting factors that may vary across population groups. To this end, Health Canada's COVID-19 Testing and Screening Expert Advisory Panel commissioned this rapid review in January 2021 to explore the available evidence in this area. The aim of this rapid review was to identify barriers to COVID-19 testing and strategies used to mitigate these barriers.MethodsSearches (completed January 8, 2021) were conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, medRxiv/bioRxiv, Cochrane and online grey literature sources to identify publications that described barriers and strategies related to COVID-19 testing.ResultsFrom 1294 academic and 97 grey literature search results, 31 academic and 31 grey literature sources were included. Data were extracted from the relevant papers. The most cited barriers were cost of testing; low health literacy; low trust in the healthcare system; availability and accessibility of testing sites; and stigma and consequences of testing positive. Strategies to mitigate barriers to COVID-19 testing included: free testing; promoting awareness of importance to testing; presenting various testing options and types of testing centres (i.e., drive-thru, walk-up, home testing); providing transportation to testing centres; and offering support for self-isolation (e.g., salary support or housing).ConclusionVarious barriers to COVID-19 testing and strategies for mitigating these barriers were identified. Further research to test the efficacy of these strategies is needed to better support testing for COVID-19 by addressing testing hesitancy as part of the broader COVID-19 public health response.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 35422031 · DOI · PMC9008387
Effectiveness of voluntary PCR testing against COVID-19 spread in remote Japanese islands [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- We assessed the association between voluntary polymerase chain reaction testing of travellers and reported infection rates in the Ogasawara Islands compared with those in several other Tokyo islands.
- Closing excerpt
- These results may inform public health preparedness and response strategies for future infectious disease outbreaks.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (154 words)
We assessed the association between voluntary polymerase chain reaction testing of travellers and reported infection rates in the Ogasawara Islands compared with those in several other Tokyo islands. The implementation of polymerase chain reaction testing over a 2-year period was evaluated. Between September 2020 and September 2022, 38,943 of 45,900 travellers to the Ogasawara Islands underwent pre-travel polymerase chain reaction testing, with a notable increase in uptake during states of emergency. Ogasawara reported 385 positive coronavirus disease 2019 cases, with no hospitalizations or severe cases among residents, in contrast to the higher infection and hospitalization rates in Tokyo. Pre-boarding polymerase chain reaction tests were associated with lower reported infection rates in this island setting. These findings suggest that combining pre-travel testing with local mitigation measures, including case isolation systems, may help safeguard the communities of small, geographically isolated islands. These results may inform public health preparedness and response strategies for future infectious disease outbreaks.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41873171 · DOI · PMC13100917
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 infections [5]
- Research article Considerations for diagnostic COVID-19 tests [6]
- Research article False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review [7]
- Research article COVID-19 diagnosis -A review of current methods [8]
- Research article Diagnostics for COVID-19: moving from pandemic response to control [9]
- Research article Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 [10]
References
- Filchakova O, Dossym D, Ilyas A, Kuanysheva T, Abdizhamil A, Bukasov R. Review of COVID-19 testing and diagnostic methods. . 2022. PMID 35390680 · DOI · PMC8970625
- Papadakis G, Pantazis AK, Fikas N, Chatziioannidou S, Tsiakalou V, Michaelidou K, et al.. Portable real-time colorimetric LAMP-device for rapid quantitative detection of nucleic acids in crude samples. . 2022. PMID 35260588 · DOI · PMC8904468
- Embrett M, Sim SM, Caldwell HAT, Boulos L, Yu Z, Agarwal G, et al.. Barriers to and strategies to address COVID-19 testing hesitancy: a rapid scoping review. . 2022. PMID 35422031 · DOI · PMC9008387
- Kimura M, Asai Y, Tsuzuki S, Shimizu Y, Uemura Y, Tanaka Y, et al.. Effectiveness of voluntary PCR testing against COVID-19 spread in remote Japanese islands. . 2026. PMID 41873171 · DOI · PMC13100917
- Kevadiya BD, Machhi J, Herskovitz J, Oleynikov MD, Blomberg WR, Bajwa N, et al.. Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Nat Mater. 2021. PMID 33589798 · DOI · PMC8264308
- Vandenberg O, Martiny D, Rochas O, van Belkum A, Kozlakidis Z. Considerations for diagnostic COVID-19 tests. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021. PMID 33057203 · DOI · PMC7556561
- Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Buitrago-Garcia D, Simancas-Racines D, Zambrano-Achig P, Del Campo R, Ciapponi A, et al.. False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2020. PMID 33301459 · DOI · PMC7728293
- Yüce M, Filiztekin E, Özkaya KG. COVID-19 diagnosis -A review of current methods. Biosens Bioelectron. 2021. PMID 33126180 · DOI · PMC7584564
- Peeling RW, Heymann DL, Teo YY, Garcia PJ. Diagnostics for COVID-19: moving from pandemic response to control. Lancet. 2022. PMID 34942102 · DOI · PMC8687671
- Böger B, Fachi MM, Vilhena RO, Cobre AF, Tonin FS, Pontarolo R. Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19. Am J Infect Control. 2021. PMID 32659413 · DOI · PMC7350782
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-11-04.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.