Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21460290›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2011

Strengths and weaknesses of FDA-approved/cleared diagnostic devices for the molecular detection of respiratory pathogens.

Christine C Ginocchio

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Pathology Consultation on Influenza Diagnostics.American journal of clinical pathology · 2016
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. What is the role of newer molecular tests in the management of CAP?Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2013
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Christine C GinocchioDivision of Infectious Disease Diagnostics, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, North Shore-LIJ Health System Laboratories, Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, Lake Success, New York 11041, USA. cginocch@nshs.edu
IJ Research (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid, sensitive, and specific identification of the microbial etiological characteristics of respiratory tract infections enhances the appropriate use of both antibiotics and antiviral agents and reduces the risk of nosocomial transmission. This article reviews the current nucleic acid amplification tests approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the detection of respiratory pathogens. In addition, Emergency Use Authorization tests for the detection of 2009 influenza A H1N1 are discussed. The advantages and limitations of the current FDA-approved/cleared tests are reviewed.

Indexed as

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntiviral AgentsCross InfectionDiagnostic Test ApprovalHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesRespiratory Tract InfectionsSensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntiviral AgentsReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID21460290
PMCPMC7107808
OpenAlexW2152182463

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.