Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21883964›Full record

SynthesisInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2012

Performance of rapid influenza H1N1 diagnostic tests: a meta-analysis.

Haitao Chu, Eric T Lofgren, M Elizabeth Halloran, Pei F Kuan, Michael Hudgens, Stephen R Cole

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2012. 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. An algorithm to diagnose influenza infection: evaluating the clinical importance and impact on hospital costs of screening with rapid antigen detection tests.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2015
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Rapid diagnosis of influenza: state of the art.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2014
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Rapid influenza H1N1 diagnostic test: its diagnostic property.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Haitao ChuDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, The University of Minnesota at Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. chux0051@umn.edu
Eric T Lofgren
M Elizabeth Halloran
Pei F Kuan
Michael Hudgens
Stephen R Cole

Funding

Statistical Methods for Cancer Clinical TrialsP01CA142538 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVIDIAN, MARIE, KOSOROK, MICHAEL R · 2010 to 2019
$21.3M
Statistical Methods and Software for Meta-analysis of Diagnostic TestsR03HS020666 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI CHU, HAITAO · 2011 to 2012
$100k
AHRQ HHS R03HS020666NCI NIH HHS P01 CA142538NCI NIH HHS P01CA142538
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing the outbreaks of 2009 pandemic H1N1 infection, rapid influenza diagnostic tests have been used to detect H1N1 infection. However, no meta-analysis has been undertaken to assess the diagnostic accuracy when this manuscript was drafted.

methodsThe literature was systematically searched to identify studies that reported the performance of rapid tests. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the overall performance.

resultsSeventeen studies were selected with 1879 cases and 3477 non-cases. The overall sensitivity and specificity estimates of the rapid tests were 0·51 (95%CI: 0·41, 0·60) and 0·98 (95%CI: 0·94, 0·99). Studies reported heterogeneous sensitivity estimates, ranging from 0·11 to 0·88. If the prevalence was 30%, the overall positive and negative predictive values were 0·94 (95%CI: 0·85, 0·98) and 0·82 (95%CI: 0·79, 0·85). The overall specificities from different manufacturers were comparable, while there were some differences for the overall sensitivity estimates. BinaxNOW had a lower overall sensitivity of 0·39 (95%CI: 0·24, 0·57) compared with all the others (P-value <0·001), whereas QuickVue had a higher overall sensitivity of 0·57 (95%CI: 0·50, 0·63) compared with all the others (P-value = 0·005).

conclusionsRapid tests have high specificity but low sensitivity and thus limited usefulness.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansInfluenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypeInfluenza, HumanSensitivity and SpecificityVirology

Identifiers

PMID21883964
PMCPMC3288365

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.