Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22457740›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Microfluidic chip for molecular amplification of influenza A RNA in human respiratory specimens.

Qingqing Cao, Madhumita Mahalanabis, Jessie Chang, Brendan Carey, Christopher Hsieh, Ahjegannie Stanley, Christine A Odell, Patricia Mitchell, James Feldman, Nira R Pollock and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Qingqing CaoDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Madhumita Mahalanabis
Jessie Chang
Brendan Carey
Christopher Hsieh
Ahjegannie Stanley
Christine A Odell
Patricia Mitchell
James Feldman
Nira R Pollock
Catherine M Klapperich
Boston University · USBoston Medical Center · USHarvard University · US

Funding

Microchip to Detect Influenza Infection and Type in Nasopharyngeal SwabsR01EB008268 · NIBIB · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI KLAPPERICH, CATHERINE M. · 2007 to 2010
$1.6M
Development and Evaluation of a Novel Diagnostic Test for Active TuberculosisK23AI074638 · NIAID · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI POLLOCK, NIRA · 2008 to 2012
$633k
NIAID NIH HHS 1 K23 AI074638-01A2NIAID NIH HHS K23 AI074638NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB008268
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A rapid, low cost, accurate point-of-care (POC) device to detect influenza virus is needed for effective treatment and control of both seasonal and pandemic strains. We developed a single-use microfluidic chip that integrates solid phase extraction (SPE) and molecular amplification via a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to amplify influenza virus type A RNA. We demonstrated the ability of the chip to amplify influenza A RNA in human nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens collected at two clinical sites from 2008-2010. The microfluidic test was dramatically more sensitive than two currently used rapid immunoassays and had high specificity that was essentially equivalent to the rapid assays and direct fluorescent antigen (DFA) testing. We report 96% (CI 89%,99%) sensitivity and 100% (CI 95%,100%) specificity compared to conventional (bench top) RT-PCR based on the testing of n = 146 specimens (positive predictive value = 100%(CI 94%,100%) and negative predictive value = 96%(CI 88%,98%)). These results compare well with DFA performed on samples taken during the same time period (98% (CI 91%,100%) sensitivity and 96%(CI 86%,99%) specificity compared to our gold standard testing). Rapid immunoassay tests on samples taken during the enrollment period were less reliable (49%(CI 38%,61%) sensitivity and 98%(CI 98%,100%) specificity). The microfluidic test extracted and amplified influenza A RNA directly from clinical specimens with viral loads down to 10³ copies/ml in 3 h or less. The new test represents a major improvement over viral culture in terms of turn around time, over rapid immunoassay tests in terms of sensitivity, and over bench top RT-PCR and DFA in terms of ease of use and portability.

Indexed as

Base SequenceElectrophoresis, Polyacrylamide GelHumansInfluenza A virusInfluenza, HumanMicrofluidicsMolecular Sequence DataNasopharynxPoint-of-Care SystemsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Homology, Nucleic AcidRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID22457740
PMCPMC3310856
OpenAlexW2015520569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.