ArticleHawai'i journal of medicine & public health : a journal of Asia Pacific Medicine & Public Health2018
Are Rapid Influenza Antigen Tests Still Clinically Useful in Today's Molecular Diagnostics World?
Article in Hawai'i journal of medicine & public health : a journal of Asia Pacific Medicine & Public Health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causes of fever in primary care in Southeast Asia and the performance of C-reactive protein in discriminating bacterial from viral pathogens.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2020Trial
- Should public health policy exempt cases with low viral load from isolation during an epidemic?: a modelling study.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2025Article
- Human metapneumovirus (hMPV) in 2025: emerging trends and insights from community and hospital-based respiratory panel analyses-a comprehensive review.Virology journal · 2025Review
- Key Insights into Respiratory Virus Testing: Sensitivity and Clinical Implications.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Recent progress in chemical approaches for the development of novel neuraminidase inhibitors.RSC advances · 2021Review
- Recent advances in the detection of respiratory virus infection in humans.Journal of medical virology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Influenza virus infection and disease historically contribute to widespread cases of seasonal morbidity and in some cases mortality. Prompt and accurate diagnosis is crucial for optimal patient management. Rapid influenza direct antigen testing (RIDT) offers a faster turn-around-time for results but test performance (ie, sensitivity and specificity) varies widely. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) can offer a viable alternative. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the test performance of RIDT with NAAT. RIDT testing included the Directigen EZ Flu A+B or the Veritor System for Rapid Detection of Flu A+B. NAAT employed the SimplexaTM Flu A/B™ RSV assay. A total of 5,795 specimens collected from October to March for the 2012/2013 (n=953), 2013/2014 (n=2060) and 2014/2015 (n=2783) seasons were co-tested by RIDT and NAAT. Using NAAT as the gold standard, RIDT tests had a sensitivity range of 0 to 15.7% and a specificity of 98.2 to 100% for influenza type A. For influenza type B, RIDT tests had a sensitivity of 0 to 33.3% and a specificity of 98.9 to 100%. These findings suggest that RIDT has unacceptably low sensitivity for both influenza A and influenza B, despite high specificity. The key advantage of RIDT in previous years (faster turnaround time) has been challenged by newer NAAT technology that provides results in a turn-around-time comparable to RIDT, but with superior test performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30221077PMC6137576What 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.