ArticlePloS one2019
Comparison of the Panther Fusion and Allplex assays for the detection of respiratory viruses in clinical samples.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes Among Older Adults Hospitalized with Respiratory Syncytial Virus and Influenza Infection: A Retrospective Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- Simultaneous detection of respiratory virus RNA on environmental surfaces in a university setting by a sensitive Surface 3-Step PCR platform.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sex differences in acute respiratory tract infections-multi-year analysis based on data from a large tertiary care medical center in Israel.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Clinical characteristics, outcomes, and subtype diversity in hospitalized human rhinovirus (HRV) patients.PloS one · 2025Article
- Dynamics of respiratory viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic in Madrid, Spain.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2023Article
- Influenza vaccine compatibility among hospitalized patients during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Outbreak of Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses in Hospitalized Patients Alongside the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Assay System for Simultaneous Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Viruses.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Combined SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing and respiratory virus panel RT-PCR on the Hologic Panther Fusion system.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory viral infections are the most frequent clinical syndrome affecting both children and adults, and early detection is fundamental to avoid infection-related risks and reduce the healthcare costs incurred by unnecessary antibiotic treatments. In this study, performance characteristics of two commercial methods, the Panther Fusion® assay (Hologic Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) were compared to Allplex™ respiratory panels (Seegene, Seoul, South Korea) for the detection of influenza A (Flu A), influenza B (Flu B), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza virus (PIV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV), rhinovirus (RV) and adenovirus (AdV) targets. A total of 865 specimens collected prospectively and retrospectively were included, and discordant results were further examined using another commercial product, R-GENE™ respiratory kits (bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France). There was high agreement between both methods, with 98.6% concordance and a kappa (k) value of 0.9 (95% CI: 0.89-0.92). A specific analysis of both methods for each viral agent demonstrated comparable sensitivity and specificity, both ranging from 0.83 to 1 with good predictive values for the prospective part of the study. Good agreement between both methods was also found for the κ values obtained (ranging from 97.55% to 98.9%), with the lowest for hMPV (k = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75-0.91) and RV (k = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.81). Amplification efficiency, measured according to the value of the cycle threshold (Ct) obtained in each of the amplifications in both tests, was significantly better with Panther Fusion for Flu A, Flu B, hMPV and RV. Regarding discordant results, R-GENE showed higher agreement with Panther Fusion-positive specimens (negative for Allplex; n = 28/71, 34.9%) than with Allplex-positive samples (negative for Panther Fusion; n = 7/49, 14.3%). In summary, Panther Fusion proved to be a more efficient fully-automated methodology, requiring shorter hands-on and turnaround times than Allplex.
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.