Trial reportBMC infectious diseases2016
Analytical performance of the BD veritor™ system for rapid detection of influenza virus A and B in a primary healthcare setting.
Trial report in BMC infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- ERS/ESCMID state-of-the-science statement on the role of rapid diagnostic tests for the diagnosis and management of community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections.The European respiratory journal · 2026Review
- Research progress on environmental stability of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
- Impact of a poorly performing point-of-care test during the 2017-2018 influenza season.The Journal of infection · 2019Article
- Review
- Point-of-care diagnostics for respiratory viral infections.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2018Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfections with influenza A virus cannot be clinically differentiated from infections caused by influenza B virus or other respiratory viruses. Additionally, although antiviral treatment is available for influenza A virus, it is not effective for the other viruses and must be initiated early in the course of disease for it to be effective. For these reasons, there is a need for a rapid, accurate diagnostic test for use in physicians' offices at the time patients are seen. We report the first field performance of BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of Flu A + B test compared to real time PCR. The performance of this test was compared to real time PCR performed in the Istanbul University Influenza Reference Laboratory.
methodA single-blinded cross sectional study was conducted in nine different family medicine centers in Istanbul, Turkey between 01 November 2014 and 01 May 2015. For every patient, two specimens were collected, one for real time PCR and one for the Veritor test. Specimens for the Veritor test were immediately tested at the participating clinic according to the manufacturer's instructions. The specimens for real time PCR were transferred to the reference laboratory.
resultsA total of 238 persons were included in the study: 72 (30 %) of the patients included in the study were below 19 years old and accepted as childhood group. Mean age of adults was 42.4 and children 10.2 years. A total of 122 patients out of 238 were positive for influenza. The clinical sensitivity and specificity of the Veritor test in all age groups was determined to be 80 and 94 %, respectively. Positive predictive value was 93 % and the negative one was 81 %.
conclusionField performance of the rapid influenza test was high and found to be useful with respect to rational antiviral use, avoiding unnecessary antibiotic usage and the management of cases by the family physicians.
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.