ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2019
Comparison of FTD® respiratory pathogens 33 and a singleplex CDC assay for the detection of respiratory viruses: A study from Cameroon.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2019. 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, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence of common respiratory pathogens among patients with severe acute respiratory infection during COVID-19 pandemic in Egypt.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Using Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling and Determination of Cause of Death to Establish Etiologies of Community Respiratory Deaths Among Zambian Infants and Children.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2025Article
- Respiratory Pathogens at Exacerbation in Chronic Bronchitis With Airway Bacterial Colonisation: A Cohort Study.The clinical respiratory journal · 2024Article
- Article
- Patterns of Non-influenza Respiratory Viruses Among Severe Acute Respiratory Infection Cases in Burkina Faso: A Surveillance Study.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2024Article
- Identification of priority pathogens for aetiological diagnosis in adults with community-acquired pneumonia in China: a multicentre prospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Diagnosing Tuberculosis: What Do New Technologies Allow Us to (Not) Do?Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2022Review
- Comparison of performance between Fast Track Diagnostics Respiratory Kit and the CDC global reference laboratory for influenza rRT-PCR panel for detection of influenza A and influenza B.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2021Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study compares the detection of 14 common respiratory viruses by two different real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) methods: in house singleplex tests developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the commercially available Fast Track Diagnostic (FTD®) Respiratory Pathogens 33 multiplex test.
methodsA total of 217 nasopharyngeal swabs were analyzed using CDC singleplex rRT-PCR and FTD® Respiratory Pathogens 33 multiplex assays, for the detection of 14 respiratory viruses.
resultsThe results showed that 179/217 (82.5%) samples were positive with the singleplex method and 183/217 (84.3%) with the FTD® Respiratory Pathogens 33 multiplex test. Excellent or satisfactory agreement was obtained for all viruses (k > 0.6) except Parainfluenzavirus 4 (k = 0.24) and influenza B (k = 0.51).
conclusionAlthough the multiplex FTD kits were more expensive than the singleplex assay, the FTD kits yielded rapid results in a shorter timeframe, increasing efficiency of diagnosis.
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.