ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2015
Comparison of xTAG respiratory virus panel and Verigene Respiratory Virus Plus for detecting influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiplex PCR system for the rapid diagnosis of respiratory virus infection: systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2018Pooled it
- Epidemiological and Evolutionary Dynamics of Influenza B Viruses in Malaysia, 2012-2014.PloS one · 2015Trial
- The effects of age on clinical characteristics, hospitalization and mortality of patients with influenza-related illness at a tertiary care centre in Malaysia.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2020Article
- Diagnostic tools for tackling febrile illness and enhancing patient management.Microelectronic engineering · 2018Article
- Critical evaluation of FDA-approved respiratory multiplex assays for public health surveillance.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2018Review
- Impact of Rapid Molecular Respiratory Virus Testing on Real-Time Decision Making in a Pediatric Emergency Department.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2017Article
- The new frontier of diagnostics: Molecular assays and their role in infection prevention and control.American journal of infection control · 2017Review
- Performance of the Cobas(®) Influenza A/B Assay for Rapid Pcr-Based Detection of Influenza Compared to Prodesse ProFlu+ and Viral Culture.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2015Article
- Development of multiplexed bead arrays for the simultaneous detection of nucleic acid from multiple viruses in bat samples.Journal of virological methods · 2015Article
- Comparison of the performance of 2 commercial multiplex PCR platforms for detection of respiratory viruses in upper and lower tract respiratory specimens.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2015Article
- Comparison of three commercial RT-PCR systems for the detection of respiratory viruses.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNucleic acid amplification tests have allowed simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory viruses.
methodsWe compared the results of a liquid bead array xTAG Respiratory Virus Panel (RVP; (Luminex Corporation, Toronto, Canada) and a solid microarray Verigene Respiratory Virus Plus (RV+; Nanosphere, Northbrook, IL) for the detection of influenza A virus (INF A), influenza B virus (INF B), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in 170 respiratory specimens from hospitalized patients.
resultsOverall, xTAG RVP demonstrated sensitivities and specificities of 97.6 and 100% for INF A, 100 and 99.4% for INF B, and 100 and 100% for RSV, while the Verigene RV+ test sensitivities and specificities were 95.1 and 98.5%, 100.0 and 99.4%, and 97.1 and 100%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the area under the curves between the two assays for each virus (P = 0.364 for INF A, P = 1.000 for INF B, P = 0.317 for RSV). Comparing the results of two assays, discordant results were present mostly due to subtype assignments and identification of coinfections. The detection of viruses was not significantly different (P = 1.000) and the virus/subtype assignment showed good agreement with kappa coefficients of 0.908.
conclusionThe xTAG RVP and Verigene RV+ showed high sensitivities and specificities, and good overall agreement in detection and identification of INF and RSV. These assays can be used in clinical settings for a reliable detection of respiratory viruses found commonly in hospitalized patients.
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.