ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2017
Performance Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panels 1, 2, and 3 for Detection of Respiratory Viruses and Influenza A Virus Subtypes.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2017. 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.
- Evaluation of the PowerChek™ Respiratory Virus Panel 1/2/3/4 for the Detection of 16 Respiratory Viruses: A Comparative Study with the Allplex™ Respiratory Panel Assay 1/2/3 and BioFireDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Molecular subtypes of Adenovirus-associated acute respiratory infection outbreak in children in Northern Vietnam and risk factors of more severe cases.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
- A Simple Scoring System to Differentiate Bacterial from Viral Infections in Acute Exacerbations of COPD Requiring Hospitalization.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2022Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panels 1, 2, 3, and BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel for the Detection of Respiratory Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Assay System for Simultaneous Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Viruses.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy of diagnostic coding for influenza compared to laboratory results: the availability of test results before hospital discharge facilitates improved coding accuracy.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Cepheid XpertInfluenza and other respiratory viruses · 2021Article
- Development of a multiplex real-time PCR assay for the simultaneous detection of four bacterial pathogens causing pneumonia.PloS one · 2021Article
- Coinfections with Respiratory Pathogens among COVID-19 Patients in Korea.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2021Article
- Viruses of Respiratory Tract: an Observational Retrospective Study on Hospitalized Patients in Rome, Italy.Microorganisms · 2020Article
- Impact of Rapid Molecular Diagnostic Testing of Respiratory Viruses on Outcomes of Adults Hospitalized with Respiratory Illness: a Multicenter Quasi-experimental Study.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Comparison of the Panther Fusion and Allplex assays for the detection of respiratory viruses in clinical samples.PloS one · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panel 1/2/3 Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assays for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses with Influenza A Virus subtyping.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Allplex respiratory panels 1, 2, and 3 (Allplex) comprise a one-step real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay for the detection of respiratory viruses (RVs) and influenza A subtypes based on multiple detection temperature (MuDT) technology. The performance of the Allplex assay was compared with those of the AdvanSure RV real-time PCR kit (AdvanSure) and the PowerChek pandemic H1N1/H3N2/H5N1 real-time PCR kit (PowerChek) using 417 clinical respiratory specimens. In comparison with the AdvanSure assay for RV detection by each virus, the ranges of positive percent agreement, negative percent agreement, and kappa values with the Allplex assay were 82.8 to 100%, 95.5 to 100%, and 0.85 to 1.00, respectively. For influenza A virus (INF A) subtyping, the kappa values between the Allplex and PowerChek assays were 0.67 and 1.00 for the INF A H1N1-pdm09 and H3 subtypes, respectively. Uniplex PCR and sequencing for samples with discrepant results demonstrated that the majority of results were concordant with those from the Allplex assay. When testing 24 samples, the turnaround and hands-on time required to perform the Allplex assay were 4 h 15 min and 15 min, respectively. In conclusion, the Allplex assay produced results comparable to those from the AdvanSure and PowerChek assays.
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.