ArticleVirology journal2010
Evaluation of a rapid diagnostic test, NanoSign® Influenza A/B Antigen, for detection of the 2009 pandemic influenza A/H1N1 viruses.
Article in Virology journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Field performance of a point-of-care PCR platform for the detection of influenza A virus in growing pigs.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Article
- Detection methods for influenza A H1N1 virus with special reference to biosensors: a review.Bioscience reports · 2020Review
- Article
- Rapid Molecular Detection and Differentiation of Influenza Viruses A and B.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2017Article
- 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
- Evaluation of Alere i Influenza A&B for rapid detection of influenza viruses A and B.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
- L-ficolin binds to the glycoproteins hemagglutinin and neuraminidase and inhibits influenza A virus infection both in vitro and in vivo.Journal of innate immunity · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the clinical accuracy and analytical sensitivity of the NanoSign® Influenza A/B antigen kit in detecting 2009 pandemic influenza A/H1N1 viruses. The kit is one of the most popular rapid diagnostic tests for detecting influenza in Republic of Korea.
resultsThe NanoSign® Influenza A/B kit resulted in 79.4% sensitivity and 97.2% specificity compared to RT-PCR in the detection of the viruses from 1,023 specimens. In addition, the kit was able to detect two strains of novel influenza viruses, Influenza A/California/12/2009(H1N1) and clinically isolated wild-type novel influenza A/H1N1, both of which are spreading epidemically throughout the world. In addition, the correlation between NanoSign® Influenza A/B test and conventional RT-PCR was approximately 94%, indicating a high concordance rate. Analytical sensitivity of the kit was approximately 73 ± 3.65 ng/mL of the purified viral proteins and 1.13 ± 0.11 hemagglutination units for the cultured virus.
conclusionsAs the NanoSign® Influenza A/B kit showed relatively high sensitivity and specificity and the good correlation with RT-PCR, it will be very useful in the early control of influenza infection and in helping physicians in making early treatment decisions.
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.