ArticleVirology journal2019
Comparison of the detection performance of two different one-step-combined test strips with fluorescent microspheres or colored microspheres as tracers for influenza A and B viruses.
Article in Virology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a dual immunochromatographic test strip to detect E2 and EFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Development of a multiplex isothermal amplification molecular diagnosis method for on-site diagnosis of influenza.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfluenza A and B viruses mainly cause respiratory infectious disease. Till now, few tests are able to simultaneously detect both, especially in primary medical establishments.
methodsThis study was designed to compare the performance of two different one-step-combined test strips for the detection of influenza A and B: one strip with fluorescent microspheres for tracers (FMT); and the other strip with colored microspheres for tracers (CMT). To test the strips, cultures of influenza A, B, and other pathogenic viruses were used, in addition to 1085 clinical specimens from symptomatic patients with respiratory infections. Real-time RT-PCR was also considered as a reference method used to detect the different results of FMT and CTM.
resultsDetection thresholds for influenza A and B cultures using serial dilutions revealed that the sensitivity of FMT was higher than that of CMT (both P < 0.05). With the culture mixtures of Coxsackie virus (A16), enteric cytopathic human orphan virus (ECHO type30), enterovirus (EV71), rotavirus (LLR strain), and enteric adenovirus (AdV 41), specificity assessment demonstrated that there was no cross reaction during the usage of the two test strips as shown by the results which were negative. In the detection of influenza A in 1085 clinical specimens, the total coincidence rate was 96.7%, the positive coincidence rate was 97.1%, and the negative coincidence rate was 96.7%. In the case of influenza B detection, the total coincidence rate was 99.1%, the positive coincidence rate was 92.6%, and the negative coincidence rate was 98.5%. In addition, with influenza A or B real-time RT-PCR detection method, the results showed that, for influenza A, 26 of the 33 specimens that negative with CMT but positive with FMT, showed positive results, and none of the 3 specimens that positive with CMT but negative with FMT showed a positive result; For influenza B, 12 of the 15 specimens that negative with CMT but positive with FMT, showed positive results, and none of the 5 specimens that positive with CMT but negative with FMT showed a positive result.
conclusionsFMT performed better than CMT in the combined detection of influenza A and B viruses.
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.