ArticleInfection2009
Laboratory-based assessment of influenza in German ambulant patients from 1998 to 2008.
Article in Infection, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the Becton Dickinson Rapid Influenza Diagnostic Tests in Outpatients in Germany during Seven Influenza Seasons.PloS one · 2015Article
- Comparing Influenza Positivity Rates by Real-Time RT-PCR, Elisa and Viral Culture Methods in Côte D'Ivoire, West Africa, in 2009.African journal of infectious diseases · 2013Article
- Comparison of the novel ResPlex III assay and existing techniques for the detection and subtyping of influenza virus during the influenza season 2006-2007.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2012Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Germany, the cost for PCR diagnosis of influenza in ambulant patients was not covered by the national statutory health insurance system until 2008. Therefore, cell culture was the standard method applied for routine diagnosis. We have prospectively compared a 1-day rapid cell culture assay (RCA) with conventional cell culture (CCC) during the influenza seasons from 1997/1998 to 2007/2008 and with real-time PCR analysis during the influenza seasons 2003/2004 and 2006/2007. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis study is based on 4,262 respiratory samples obtained from ambulant patients between January 1998 and May 2008. The RCA was performed in microtiter plates that were stained with monoclonal antibodies to influenza virus A and B 16 h after inoculation.
resultsA total of 1,221 specimens were found to be positive by the cell culture methods - 1,143 (93.6%) by the RCA and 1,012 (82.9%) by the CCC. The sensitivity of the RCA and CCC versus PCR was 75.4% (221/293) and 58% (170/293), respectively. The specificity of both cell culture assays versus PCR was 100%. Influenza A represented 79.3% of the cases diagnosed. An increased activity of influenza was observed between January and March, with the rate of influenza-positive cases being highest for kindergarten and school-aged children.
conclusionWhile PCR is the most sensitive assay for the diagnosis of influenza, the RCA can still be used for diagnosis and surveillance of this disease. Based on our findings and given the known fact that influenza antibodies reach a plateau 2-4 weeks after immunization, the optimal time for vaccination in Germany is from October through November. Kindergarten and school-aged children represent an important reservoir of infection. Consequently, routine immunization should be considered for this age group to prevent the spread of influenza.
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.