ArticlePloS one2011
Performance of the QuickVue Influenza A+B rapid test for pandemic H1N1 (2009) virus infection in adults.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Evaluating an app-guided self-test for influenza: lessons learned for improving the feasibility of study designs to evaluate self-tests for respiratory viruses.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Microfluidic-based virus detection methods for respiratory diseases.Emergent materials · 2021Review
- Performance of rapid influenza diagnostic tests (QuickVue) for influenza A and B Infection in India.Indian journal of medical microbiology · 2015Article
- Article
- Duplex molecular assay intended for point-of-care diagnosis of influenza A/B virus infection.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the QuickVue® Influenza A+B rapid test we conducted a prospective observational study in which this rapid test was compared with a real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for pandemic influenza A H1N1 (2009) infection in Austrian adults. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the QuickVue test compared with the RT-PCR were 26% (95% CI 18-35), 98% (95% CI 92-100), 94% (95% CI 80-99) and 50% (95% CI 42-58), respectively. The prevalence of pandemic H1N1 (2009) virus infection among the 209 patients included in the study was 57%. Our data suggest that a positive QuickVue test provides considerable information for the diagnosis of pandemic influenza A H1N1 (2009) virus infection in young adults but that a negative QuickVue test result should, if relevant for patient management or public health measures, be verified using PCR.
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.