Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32314145›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2020

Improved performances of the second generation of the ID NOW influenza A&B 2® and comparison with the GeneXpert®.

Eric Farfour, Antoine Roux, Marie Ballester, Léa Gagneur, Claudine Renaux, Emilie Jolly, Marc Vasse

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The ID NOW COVID-19, a high-speed high-performance assay.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Eric FarfourService de Biologie Clinique, Hôpital Foch, 40 Rue Worth, 92150, Suresnes, France. e.farfour@hopital-foch.org.
Antoine RouxService de Pneumologie et Transplantation Pulmonaire, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France.
Marie BallesterService des Urgences, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France.
Léa GagneurService de Biologie Clinique, Hôpital Foch, 40 Rue Worth, 92150, Suresnes, France.
Claudine RenauxService de Biologie Clinique, Hôpital Foch, 40 Rue Worth, 92150, Suresnes, France.
Emilie JollyService de Biologie Clinique, Hôpital Foch, 40 Rue Worth, 92150, Suresnes, France.
Marc VasseService de Biologie Clinique, Hôpital Foch, 40 Rue Worth, 92150, Suresnes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the congestion of emergency wards, a rapid and accurate method for flu diagnosis is required. However, the first evaluations of the ID NOW® influenza A&B performances were heterogeneous. We aimed to (i) assess the performance of the second generation of the ID NOW® influenza A&B 2 and (ii) compare the ID NOW® to the GeneXpert® use when performed within a central laboratory. (i) Analytical performances of ID NOW® were assessed using a collection of 112 clinical samples in comparison with a reference multiplex PCR (Seegene®); (ii) Invalid rate per operator and time to result were calculated for the GeneXpert® Xpress Flu/RSV and the ID NOW® influenza A&B 2® during 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 flu outbreaks respectively. ID NOW® reaches an overall sensitivity and specificity of 96.6% and 96.1% respectively. Most of the false-negative display a CT > 37. For both instruments, a single operator was involved in about a half of all invalid results. Excluding this operator involved in most invalid result, the invalid rate was about 1% for both instruments. Time to result from sampling was significantly shorter in the ID NOW® versus the GeneXpert® group (33 vs 97 min, P < 0.01). The second generation of the ID NOW® influenza A&B 2 displays high performances, comparable with conventional PCR method. In order to prevent invalid results, we highlight the need for adequate training of operators. Also, when implemented in a central laboratory, the location of the instrument could have a strong impact on the time-to-results.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksFranceHumansInfluenza A virusInfluenza B virusInfluenza, HumanMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionNasopharynxPoint-of-Care SystemsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityAlere iFluGeneXpertID NOWInfluenzaPoint of care (POC)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.