ArticleInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2014
Evaluating the performance of a rapid antigen test for the detection of influenza virus in clinical specimens from children in Cameroon.
Article in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The epidemiology of seasonal influenza after the 2009 influenza pandemic in Africa: a systematic review.African health sciences · 2020Pooled it
- 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
- A general approach to identify low-frequency variants within influenza samples collected during routine surveillance.Microbial genomics · 2022Article
- Influence of meteorological parameters in the seasonality of influenza viruses circulating in Northern Cameroon.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The performance of SD Bioline rapid antigen test (RAT) was evaluated using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) as gold standard. A total of 718 nasal swabs, including 102 rRT-PCR positive and 616 rRT-PCR negative swabs, were tested. RAT demonstrates a sensitivity of 29·4% with a specificity of 100%. The positivity rate of RAT was highly associated with lower cycle threshold (Ct) values (P < 0·0001). The excellent specificity of the RAT allowed for the rapid identification of influenza cases. However, negative results should be verified by rRT-PCR test because of limitations observed in sensitivity.
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.