ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2017
Necessity to critically review the automatic results of the Xpert Flu assay.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2017. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Cepheid® Xpert Flu and Roche RealTime Ready Influenza A/H1N1 Detection Set for detection of influenza A/H1N1.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While using the Xpert Flu assay we became aware of false-negative results. The study aimed to analyze the causes of these false-negative results. One hundred fifty-nine respiratory specimens were tested in the Xpert Flu assay and in multiplex reverse transcription-polymerase chain reactions (RT-PCRs) for respiratory viruses. Discordant specimens were tested in the Influenza A/B r-gene assay. One hundred fifty-two (96%) and 151 (95%) specimens yielded concordant results for influenza A and B, respectively. Fifteen specimens tested negative in the Xpert Flu assay and positive in a multiplex RT-PCR. Positive results were confirmed for 12 of these specimens in the Influenza A/B r-gene assay. Xpert Flu assay amplification curves and endpoints suggested that the false-negative results were mainly due to erroneous automatic result interpretation. We report false-negative results of the Xpert Flu assay due to erroneous automatic result interpretation. Careful analysis of amplification curves and endpoints is needed to avoid reporting of false-negative results.
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.