Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21953031›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2012

Evaluation of the ESPLINE® Influenza A & B-N assay for the detection of influenza A and B in nasopharyngeal aspirates.

E De Witte, H Goossens, M Ieven

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Point-of-care diagnostics for respiratory viral infections.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2018
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Identification of respiratory viruses with a novel point-of-care multianalyte antigen detection test in children with acute respiratory tract infection.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2013
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

E De WitteLaboratory of Microbiology, University Hospital Antwerp, Wilrijkstraat 10, 2650, Edegem, Antwerp, Belgium. evy.dewitte@ugent.be
H Goossens
M Ieven
Antwerp University Hospital · BEUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several direct antigen tests for the detection of influenza often lack sensitivity compared to immunofluorescence (IF) on the specimens and viral culture (VC). We evaluated the performance of a rapid test, the ESPLINE® Influenza A & B-N assay. A total of 302 respiratory specimens were collected at the University Hospital of Antwerp. A first group of 60 samples taken during the H1N1 outbreak (2009-2010) and a second group of 242 samples stored during the seasonal influenza epidemics (2000-2009) were analyzed with the ESPLINE® test. A subset of samples were also evaluated with the BinaxNOW Influenza and the Clearview Exact Influenza. The results were compared to IF on the specimens, VC with IF, and the combination of both, which was considered as the gold standard. The ESPLINE® test's overall sensitivity and specificity were 91% and 97%, during the H1N1 season 80% and 93%, and for the detection of seasonal influenza 93% and 97%, respectively. In comparison to the BinaxNOW Influenza and the Clearview Exact Influenza, all tests demonstrated a similar specificity of 92.0-100% but a significantly different sensitivity of 44.4-86.0%, with the ESPLINE® test being significantly more sensitive. Due to its very good performance and simplicity, the ESPLINE® test facilitates urgent testing. The test seems less sensitive to detect H1N1 compared to seasonal influenza, although the difference is borderline not significant (p = 0.067).

Indexed as

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolClinical Laboratory TechniquesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfluenza A virusInfluenza B virusInfluenza, HumanMaleNasopharynxNetherlandsReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID21953031
OpenAlexW2011984506

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.