ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2009
Field performance of a rapid diagnostic test for influenza in an ambulatory setting.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analytical performance of the BD veritor™ system for rapid detection of influenza virus A and B in a primary healthcare setting.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Trial
- ERS/ESCMID state-of-the-science statement on the role of rapid diagnostic tests for the diagnosis and management of community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections.The European respiratory journal · 2026Review
- Evaluating an app-guided self-test for influenza: lessons learned for improving the feasibility of study designs to evaluate self-tests for respiratory viruses.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Clinical Impact of Rapid Point-of-Care PCR Influenza Testing in an Urgent Care Setting: a Single-Center Study.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Article
- Performance of the Cobas(®) Influenza A/B Assay for Rapid Pcr-Based Detection of Influenza Compared to Prodesse ProFlu+ and Viral Culture.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2015Article
- Clinical and virologic factors associated with reduced sensitivity of rapid influenza diagnostic tests in hospitalized elderly patients and young children.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
- The burden of influenza in young children, 2004-2009.Pediatrics · 2013Article
- Clinical validation of a point-of-care multiplexed in vitro immunoassay using monoclonal antibodies (the MSD influenza test) in four hospitals in Vietnam.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
- Microfluidic chip for molecular amplification of influenza A RNA in human respiratory specimens.PloS one · 2012Article
- Generation and characterisation of monoclonal antibodies against influenza virus A, subtype H5N1.Journal of virological methods · 2011Article
- Performance characteristics of a rapid immunochromatographic assay for detection of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus in children.European journal of pediatrics · 2011Article
- Feasibility of diagnosing influenza within 24 hours of symptom onset in children 1-3 years of age.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2011Article
- Evaluation of a rapid diagnostic test, NanoSign® Influenza A/B Antigen, for detection of the 2009 pandemic influenza A/H1N1 viruses.Virology journal · 2010Article
- The role of rapid antigen testing for influenza in the era of molecular diagnostics.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Provided test characteristics are adequate, point-of-care rapid antigen detection tests for influenza could improve the timeliness and appropriateness of clinical decisions. Our objective was to estimate the field sensitivity and specificity of the Quidel QuickVue Influenza A+B test in an ambulatory setting. The sensitivity and specificity of the Quidel QuickVue test was evaluated against reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal specimens collected over two consecutive influenza seasons from ambulatory patients consulting for influenza-like illness (ILI) within 7 days of ILI onset. A total of 491 patients with ILI (180 in 2006 to 2007 and 311 in 2007 to 2008) provided specimens that were tested both by PCR and by the Quidel QuickVue test. Among the 267 patients positive by PCR (55%), 52 were also positive by the QuickVue test, for an overall sensitivity of 19.5% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 14.7% to 24.2%). Among the 221 PCR-negative patients, 2 were positive for influenza B virus by the rapid test (<1%), for an overall specificity of 99.1% (95% CI, 97.9 to 100%). The field sensitivity of the test varied little with the age or gender of the patient, immunization status, delay since the onset of symptoms, or influenza season. The sensitivity of the test was slightly but nonsignificantly higher for influenza B virus (23%) than for influenza A virus (18%). Despite its high specificity, the low sensitivity of the Quidel QuickVue Influenza A+B test is too poor to direct clinical decisions for ambulatory patients with ILI. Negative results cannot rule out the diagnosis of influenza, and in that context, this test is of questionable utility for routine application in the clinical setting.
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.