ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2018
Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Evaluation of Three Rapid Influenza Diagnostic Tests for Detection of Influenza A and B Viruses Using RT-PCR as Reference Method.Journal of medical virology · 2025Article
- Development of reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays for point-of-care testing of human influenza virus subtypes H1N1 and H3N2.Genomics & informatics · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Rapid Diagnostic Tests to Guide Case Management of and Improve Antibiotic Stewardship for Pediatric Acute Respiratory Illnesses in Resource-Constrained Settings: a Prospective Cohort Study in Southwestern Uganda.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Observational
- Diagnostic Accuracy of the Quidel Sofia Rapid Influenza Fluorescent Immunoassay in Patients with Influenza-like Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2021Article
- Factors Affecting the Incidence of Hospitalized Pneumonia after Influenza Infection in Korea Using the National Health Insurance Research Database, 2014-2018: Focusing on the Effect of Antiviral Therapy in the 2017 Flu Season.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Ultrasensitive Electrical Detection of Hemagglutinin for Point-of-Care Detection of Influenza Virus Based on a CMP-NANA Probe and Top-Down Processed Silicon Nanowire Field-Effect Transistors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Review
- Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) show variable sensitivities in clinical settings. We aimed to compare three digital RIDTs and one conventional RIDT.
methodsWe assessed 218 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients between neonates and 90 years old in 2016. Three digital RIDTs were BUDDI, Sofia Influenza A+B Fluorescence Immunoassay, Veritor System Flu A+B assay. One conventional test was the SD Bioline Influenza Ag A/B/A(H1N1/2009). All test results were compared with those from the Anyplex Flu A/B Typing Real-time Detection real-time PCR. The four RIDTs were tested with diluted solutions from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) to compare lower detection limit. Cross-reactivity of four RIDTs within other respiratory viruses was identified.
resultsFor influenza A, BUDDI, Sofia, Veritor, and Bioline showed 87.7%, 94.5%, 87.7%, and 72.6% sensitivity, and 100%, 97.7%, 96.5%, and 100% specificity. For influenza B, BUDDI, Sofia, Veritor, and Bioline showed 81.7%, 91.7%, 81.7%, and 78.3% sensitivity, and 100%, 95.3%, 100%, and 100% specificity, respectively. Each RIDT could detect diluted NIBSC solution, according to the level of dilution and specific influenza subtypes. Cross-reactivity of four RIDTs with other respiratory viruses was not noted.
conclusionsSofia showed the highest sensitivity for influenza A and B detection. BUDDI and Veritor showed higher detection sensitivity than a conventional RIDT for influenza A detection, but similar results for influenza B detection. Further study is needed to compare the test performance of RIDTs according to specific, prevalent influenza subtypes.
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.