Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27401400›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2016

Partial comparison of the NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel Assay with the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Panel Fast Assay V2 and singleplex real-time polymerase chain reaction for detection of respiratory pathogens.

Susanna Esposito, Alessia Scala, Sonia Bianchini, Maria Lory Presicce, Alessandro Mori, Calogero Sathya Sciarrabba, Giulia Fior, Nicola Principi

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Susanna EspositoPediatric Highly Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: susanna.esposito@unimi.it.
Alessia ScalaPediatric Highly Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Sonia BianchiniPediatric Highly Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Maria Lory PresiccePediatric Highly Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro MoriPediatric Highly Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Calogero Sathya SciarrabbaPediatric Highly Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Giulia FiorPediatric Highly Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Nicola PrincipiPediatric Highly Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, 185 nasopharyngeal swabs were tested to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the Luminex NxTAG (NxTAG) Respiratory Pathogen Panel (RPP) Assay with those of the Luminex Respiratory Virus Panel (RVP) Fast Assay v2 and singleplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The NxTAG Assay identified at least one infectious agent in 164 (88.7%) of the swabs. In 91 (6.2%) tests with negative results with the RVP Fast Assay v2, a virus was identified by the NxTAG (P < 0.001). With the NxTAG Assay, the detection rates were significantly higher for respiratory syncytial virus (P = 0.003), human metapneumovirus (P < 0.001), human rhinovirus/human enterovirus (P = 0.009) and human adenovirus (P < 0.001). Finally, the NxTAG Assay identified M. pneumoniae in 32 of 44 (72.7%) PCR-positive samples. However, the concordance with real-time PCR results was low for both assays. In conclusion, the results indicate that the NxTAG Assay overcomes some of the limitations of previous Luminex assays, although further studies are needed for a more complete evaluation of the new assay.

Indexed as

AdolescentBacterial InfectionsChildHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNasopharynxPredictive Value of TestsRespiratory Tract InfectionsSensitivity and SpecificityVirus DiseasesAtypical bacteriaLuminex NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel AssayLuminex Respiratory Virus Panel Fast Assay v2Real-time polymerase chain reactionRespiratory viruses

Identifiers

PMID27401400
PMCPMC7132749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.