Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak.It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Smartphones and wrist-worn activity trackers are increasingly popular for step counting purposes and physical activity promotion. Although trackers from popular brands have frequently been validated, the accuracy of low-cost devices under free-living conditions has not been adequately determined. Objective: To investigate the criterion validity of smartphones and low-cost wrist-worn activity trackers under free-living conditions. Methods: Participants wore a waist-worn Yamax pedometer and seven different low-cost wrist-worn activity trackers continuously over 3 days, and an activity log was completed at the end of each day. At the end of the study, the number of step counts reflected on the participants’ smartphone for each of the 3 days was also recorded. To establish criterion validity, step counts from smartphones and activity trackers were compared with the pedometers using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, mean absolute percentage error, and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: Five of the seven activity trackers underestimated step counts and the remaining two and the smartphones overestimated step counts. Criterion validity was consistently higher for the activity trackers (r = .78–.92; mean absolute percentage error 14.5%–36.1%; intraclass correlation coefficient: .51–.91) than the smartphone (r = .37; mean absolute percentage error 55.7%; intraclass correlation coefficient: .36). Stratified analysis showed better validity of smartphones among female than for male participants. Phone wearing location also affected accuracy. Conclusions: Low-cost trackers demonstrated high accuracy in recording step counts and can be considered with confidence for research purposes or large-scale health promotion programs. The accuracy of using a smartphone for measuring step counts was substantially lower. Factors such as phone wear location and gender should also be considered when using smartphones to track step counts.