ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Evaluation of the Xpert Flu rapid PCR assay in high-risk emergency department patients.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- An open source, PCR based, point-of-care testing platform.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- How Significant Are Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Test Findings When Only an N2 Gene Is Detected?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Cloud-Based Influenza Surveillance System in Emergency Departments Using Molecular-Based Testing: Advances and Challenges.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2022Article
- COVID-19 Pandemic and Upcoming Influenza Season-Does an Expert's Computed Tomography Assessment Differentially Identify COVID-19, Influenza and Pneumonias of Other Origin?Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Laboratory Diagnosis of Respiratory Tract Infections in Children - the State of the Art.Frontiers in microbiology · 2018Review
- Necessity to critically review the automatic results of the Xpert Flu assay.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2017Article
- Diagnosing Viral and Atypical Pathogens in the Setting of Community-Acquired Pneumonia.Clinics in chest medicine · 2017Review
- [Rapid diagnostic test for respiratory infections].Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica · 2017Review
- Sample-to-result molecular infectious disease assays: clinical implications, limitations and potential.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2016Review
- Point-of-care testing for respiratory viruses in adults: The current landscape and future potential.The Journal of infection · 2015Review
- Prospective comparison of RT-PCR/ESI-MS to Prodesse ProFlu Plus and Cepheid GenXpert for the detection of Influenza A and B viruses.Journal of virological methods · 2015Article
- Rapid diagnostic methods for acute viral respiratory infections.Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinicaArticle
- Analytical performance of the Alere™ i Influenza A&B assay for the rapid detection of influenza viruses.Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinicaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We prospectively evaluated the performance of Cepheid's GeneXpert Xpert Flu assay in a target population of 281 adults presenting to the emergency department with an acute respiratory illness who met Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria for recommended antiviral treatment. Compared with the Prodesse ProFlu+ assay, Xpert Flu had an overall sensitivity of 95.3% and specificity of 99.2%.
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.