Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20799762›Full record

ReviewMolecular diagnosis & therapy2010

The role of rapid antigen testing for influenza in the era of molecular diagnostics.

Suzanne E Dale

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Suzanne E DaleDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, and Hamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. dales@hhsc.ca
Hamilton Health Sciences · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid antigen testing for influenza has been both maligned and revered since its conception. Microbiologists have long lamented the lack of sensitivity of commercial rapid influenza detection tests (RIDTs), whereas many clinicians have eschewed their utility by emphasizing the value of definitely diagnosing influenza at the patient's bedside. RIDTs, although quick and easy to perform, are widely accepted as being less sensitive than traditional culture techniques and newer molecular methods, including reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Moreover, the performance characteristics of RIDTs vary widely, and their applications as clinical diagnostic tools are not well understood. In contrast, traditional techniques are time consuming and require significant expertise to perform. Often, the delay in diagnosing influenza through these methods has little impact on patient care. The benefits of achieving a diagnosis of influenza at the point of care are numerous and include increased access to appropriate antivirals, appropriate patient cohorting for infection control purposes, and better resource utilization. Therefore, it behooves the microbiology community to communicate these issues to clinicians and to work to improve the sensitivity of RIDTs.

Indexed as

Antigens, ViralHumansInfluenza, HumanOrthomyxoviridaePathology, MolecularSensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, Viral

Identifiers

PMID20799762
OpenAlexW1995793664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.