Trial reportScientific reports2018
Clinical evaluation of rapid fluorescent diagnostic immunochromatographic test for influenza A virus (H1N1).
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lateral flow immunoassay using plasmonic scattering.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Ultraprecise Detection of Influenza Virus by Antibody-Modified Graphene Transistors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advancing Access to Diagnostic Tools Essential for Universal Health Coverage and Antimicrobial Resistance Prevention: An Overview of Trials in Sub-Saharan Africa.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Article
- Cysteamine-Gold Coated Carboxylated Fluorescent Nanoparticle Mediated Point-of-Care Dual-Modality Detection of the H5N1 Pathogenic Virus.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Development of a Rapid Fluorescent Diagnostic System for Early Detection of the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5 Clade 2.3.4.4 Viruses in Chicken Stool.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Development of a Kit for Rapid Immunochromatographic Detection of Sacbrood Virus InfectingViruses · 2021Article
- Biomimetic Nanopillar-Based Biosensor for Label-Free Detection of Influenza A Virus.Biochip journal · 2021Article
- Detection methods for influenza A H1N1 virus with special reference to biosensors: a review.Bioscience reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been developed to detect influenza A virus for the swift diagnosis and management of patients. However, despite the simplicity and convenience, the low sensitivity of RDTs remains a limitation for their use in point of care testing (POCT). In this study, we developed a rapid fluorescent immunochromatographic strip test (FICT) and the performance of FICT was confirmed by the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) of H1N1, compared with that of RDT. The limit of detection (LOD) of FICT was improved by 16-fold compared to RDT. FICT showed 85.29% sensitivity (29/34) (95% Confidence Interval [95% CI]: 68.94 to 95.05), 100% specificity (26/26) (95% CI: 86.78 to 100.00), and a strong correlation (kappa; 0. 92) compared with rRT-PCR (20 ≤ Ct ≤ 36). In contrast, RDT (Standard Diagnostics [SD] BIOLINE Influenza Ag A/ B/ A(H1N1) Pandemic) showed 55.88% sensitivity (19/34) (95% CI: 37.87 to 72.82), 100% specificity (26/26) (95% CI: 77.07 to 100), and had a fair correlation with rRT-PCR (kappa; 0. 75). FICT had better sensitivity than RDT (P < 0.01; McNemar's test). Therefore, FICT has the potential to improve the quality of current rapid POCT for the diagnosis of influenza A/H1N1 infection.
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.