ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2018
Evaluation of a two-stage testing algorithm for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Syndromic Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (mPCR) Testing and Antimicrobial Stewardship: Current Practice and Future Directions.Current infectious disease reports · 2021Review
- Impact of BioFire FilmArray respiratory panel results on antibiotic days of therapy in different clinical settings.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2021Article
- Cost-Effective Respiratory Virus Testing.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New on-demand multiplex molecular respiratory viral diagnostics offer superior performance although can be expensive and some platforms cannot process multiple specimens simultaneously. We performed a retrospective study reviewing results of patients tested for respiratory viruses following introduction of a two-stage testing algorithm incorporating an initial screen with Sofia® immunoassay then secondary Biofire Filmarray®, and compared to a period when only Filmarray® was used. Of 2976 testing episodes, 1814 underwent initial Sofia® then follow-up FilmArray®. A diagnosis of influenza was made by Sofia® in 282 patients, and by FilmArray® in an additional 163 (median time to result 1.12hours versus 3.46hours, P<0.001). Significantly more patients received their diagnosis within 90minutes in winter despite testing more samples (11.1% versus 3.4%, P<0.001), and approximately $36,000 was saved. An algorithmic approach to respiratory viral diagnosis can combine the advantages of accuracy and speed and be cost saving.
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.