ArticleJournal of virological methods2015
Prospective comparison of RT-PCR/ESI-MS to Prodesse ProFlu Plus and Cepheid GenXpert for the detection of Influenza A and B viruses.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Performance evaluation of the Panther Fusion® respiratory tract panel.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RT-PCR/ESI-MS has previously demonstrated the capability to detect and identify respiratory viral pathogens in nasopharyngeal swabs. This study expands on previous research by performing a prospective evaluation of RT-PCR/ESI-MS to detect and identify Influenza A and B viruses compared to Prodesse ProFlu Plus and combined ProFlu Plus and Cepheid Xpert Flu. ProFlu Plus was also used as a gold standard for comparison for respiratory syncytial virus detection. Using ProFlu Plus as a gold standard, RT-PCR/ESI-MS had sensitivity and specificity of 82.1% (23/28) and 100% (258/258), respectively, for Influenza A, 100% (16/16) and 99.6% (269/270), respectively for Influenza B, and 88.6% (39/44) and 99.6% (241/242) for any Influenza virus. Using matching results from ProFlu Plus and Xpert Flu as a gold standard, RT-PCR/ESI-MS had 85.2% (23/27) and 100% (259/259) sensitivity and specificity respectively for Influenza A, 100% (14/14) and 99.6% (270/272), respectively for Influenza B virus. Overall, RT-PCR/ESI-MS was not as sensitive as the combined gold standard of ProFlu Plus and Xpert Flu, although it has the capability of detecting other respiratory viruses.
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.