ArticleInfection2011
Clinical performance of three rapid diagnostic tests for influenza virus in nasopharyngeal specimens to detect novel swine-origin influenza viruses.
Article in Infection, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of detection rate of 16 sampling methods for respiratory viruses: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of clinical data and systematic review.BMJ global health · 2020Pooled it
- 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
- Quantitative influenza follow-up testing (QIFT)--a novel biomarker for the monitoring of disease activity at the point-of-care.PloS one · 2014Article
- Validation of a multiplex reverse transcriptase PCR ELISA for the detection of 19 respiratory tract pathogens.Infection · 2013Article
- Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of influenza pneumonia.Current infectious disease reports · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfluenza is an important public health problem. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the sensitivity and specificity of three rapid diagnostic tests (SEKISUI, QuickVue Influenza A + B, and SD BIOLINE) for novel swine-origin influenza viruses (S-OIV) and seasonal influenza. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 210 nasopharyngeal swabs from unique clinical specimens were previously tested by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay and tested again in this study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of these, 164 (78%) were influenza A-positive and 46 (22%) were influenza A-negative by RT-PCR. From 115 positive swabs, 80 (69.6%), 66 (57.4%), and 46 (40.0%) showed S-OIV by SEKISUI, QuickVue Influenza A + B, and SD BIOLINE, respectively. Specific positive and negative predictive values of these three commercial rapid tests were all 100%. Therefore, positive rapid influenza virus diagnosis does not require an RT-PCR confirmatory test. Conversely, only negative rapid influenza virus diagnosis should be evaluated. The SEKISUI test would be a useful diagnostic tool for screening clinical samples for influenza. Concerning the various specimen types, among 25 patients with RT-PCR-proven S-OIV infection, influenza was identified in sputum (21/25; 84.0%) and nasopharyngeal swab (15/25; 60.0%) specimens, but in only 36.0% (9/25) of throat swab specimens. Sputum and nasopharyngeal swab specimens were the most predictive of influenza virus infection, while throat swab specimens were the least predictive of influenza virus infection.
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.