ReviewAmerican journal of clinical pathology2016
Pathology Consultation on Influenza Diagnostics.
Review in American journal of clinical pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Diagnostic Techniques for Influenza Virus Infection: A Comprehensive Review.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Review
- All-fiber label-free optical fiber biosensors: from modern technologies to current applications [Invited].Biomedical optics express · 2024Review
- The convergent evolution of influenza A virus: Implications, therapeutic strategies and what we need to know.Current research in microbial sciences · 2023Article
- Influenza A, Influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2 Similarities and Differences - A Focus on Diagnosis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Detection and Prevention of Virus Infection.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
- A changing trend in diagnostic methods of Influenza A (H3N2) virus in human: a review.3 Biotech · 2021Review
- Review
- Virus-Derived Peptides for Clinical Applications.Chemical reviews · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the strengths and limitations of the available influenza diagnostics, with a focus on rapid antigen detection assays and nucleic acid detection assays.
methodsA case-based presentation is used to illustrate the potential limitations of rapid antigen detection assays for influenza.
resultsInfluenza is a seasonal illness; estimates attribute influenza to approximately 200,000 hospitalizations and 41,000 deaths in the United States annually. Antigen detection assays for influenza are rapid and convenient, and thus are widely used in a variety of health care settings, even though the sensitivity of these assays may be suboptimal. The United States Food and Drug Administration has recently created new guidelines intended to improve the oversight and performance characteristics of influenza antigen detection assays. Molecular assays, although more costly and complex, are more sensitive and may be designed to simultaneously detect multiple respiratory pathogens within a single assay.
conclusionsDiagnostic assays for influenza can vary greatly with regards to analytical performance characteristics, complexity, turnaround time and cost. This can have important patient care and infection prevention implications.
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.