Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19688094›Full record

ArticlePloS one2009

Estimating sensitivity of laboratory testing for influenza in Canada through modelling.

Dena L Schanzer, Michael J Garner, Todd F Hatchette, Joanne M Langley, Samina Aziz, Theresa W S Tam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dena L SchanzerInfectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dena_Schanzer@phac-aspc.gc.ca
Michael J Garner
Todd F Hatchette
Joanne M Langley
Samina Aziz
Theresa W S Tam

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe weekly proportion of laboratory tests that are positive for influenza is used in public health surveillance systems to identify periods of influenza activity. We aimed to estimate the sensitivity of influenza testing in Canada based on results of a national respiratory virus surveillance system. METHODS AND

findingsThe weekly number of influenza-negative tests from 1999 to 2006 was modelled as a function of laboratory-confirmed positive tests for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), adenovirus and parainfluenza viruses, seasonality, and trend using Poisson regression. Sensitivity was calculated as the number of influenza positive tests divided by the number of influenza positive tests plus the model-estimated number of false negative tests. The sensitivity of influenza testing was estimated to be 33% (95%CI 32-34%), varying from 30-40% depending on the season and region.

conclusionsThe estimated sensitivity of influenza tests reported to this national laboratory surveillance system is considerably less than reported test characteristics for most laboratory tests. A number of factors may explain this difference, including sample quality and specimen procurement issues as well as test characteristics. Improved diagnosis would permit better estimation of the burden of influenza.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesModels, TheoreticalCanadaHumansInfluenza, HumanSeasonsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID19688094
PMCPMC2722738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.