ArticleThe Journal of infection2020
Diagnostic accuracy of the FebriDx host response point-of-care test in patients hospitalised with suspected COVID-19.
Article in The Journal of infection, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- FebriDx for rapid screening of patients with suspected COVID-19 upon hospital admission: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.The Journal of hospital infection · 2022Pooled it
- Use of the FebriDx® host-response point-of-care test may reduce antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections in primary care: a mixed-methods feasibility study.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024Trial
- Rapid Diagnostics for Distinguishing Bacterial and Viral Infections: A Review of Technologies, Clinical Utility, and Stewardship Implications.Biosensors · 2026Review
- A Nomogram Integrating CD169%, Neutrophil CD64 Index, and C-Reactive Protein for Differential Diagnosis of Mixed Respiratory Tract Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluating myxovirus resistance protein A-based rapid testing combined with pathogen sequencing for arboviral and incidental viral infection surveillance in Senegal.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Distinguishing Between Bacterial and Viral Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Hospitalized Adults: The Importance of Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Findings.Pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- Recent updates of interferon-derived myxovirus resistance protein A as a biomarker for acute viral infection.European journal of medical research · 2024Review
- Evaluation of a Novel Point-of-Care Blood Myxovirus Resistance Protein A Measurement for the Detection of Viral Infection at the Pediatric Emergency Department.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Protein and transcriptional biomarker profiling may inform treatment strategies in lower respiratory tract infections by indicating bacterial-viral differentiation.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Use of the FebriDx point-of-care test for lower respiratory tract infections in primary care: a qualitative interview study.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Performance of the FebriDx Rapid Point-of-Care Test for Differentiating Bacterial and Viral Respiratory Tract Infections in Patients with a Suspected Respiratory Tract Infection in the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- MxA for differentiating viral and bacterial infections in adults: a prospective, exploratory study.Infection · 2023Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the host-response biomarker interferon-γ-induced protein-10 in predicting SARS-CoV-2 infectiousness.The Journal of hospital infection · 2023Article
- Observational
- Diagnostic Accuracy of a Bacterial and Viral Biomarker Point-of-Care Test in the Outpatient Setting.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and C-reactive protein in predicting the progression of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a prospective cohort study.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2022Article
- Blood myxovirus resistance protein-1 measurement in the diagnostic work-up of suspected COVID-19 infection in the emergency department.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2022Observational
- COVID-19 Testing and Diagnostics: A Review of Commercialized Technologies for Cost, Convenience and Quality of Tests.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionManagement of the COVID-19 pandemic is hampered by long delays associated with centralised laboratory PCR testing. In hospitals this leads to poor patient flow and nosocomial transmission and so rapid, accurate diagnostic tests are urgently required. The FebriDx is a point-of-care test that detects an antiviral host response protein in finger prick blood within 10 min, but its accuracy for the identification of COVID-19 is unknown.
methodsWe performed a real-world diagnostic accuracy study of FebriDx in hospitalised patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated based on FebriDx results compared to the reference standard of SARS-CoV-2 PCR on combined nose and throat swabs. A multivariable predictive model including FebriDx, age, sex, and clinical characteristics was developed and underwent internal validation.
resultsFebriDx was performed on 251 patients and gave a valid result in 248. 118 of 248 (48%) were PCR positive for COVID-19. FebriDx results were available after 10 min compared with 1.7 (1.6 to 2.1) hours with point-of-care PCR testing and 23.4 (17.2 to 31.1) hours with laboratory PCR testing. Sensitivity of FebriDx for the identification of COVID-19 was 93% (110/118; 95% CI 87 to 97%) and specificity was 86% (112/130; 95%CI 79 to 92%). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 6.73 (95%CI 4.37 to 10.37) and 0.08 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.15) respectively. In the multivariate model age, sex and other clinical features did not contribute significantly to the effect of the FebriDx result in distinguishing patients with and without COVID-19.
conclusionsDuring the first wave of the pandemic, FebriDx had high accuracy for the identification of COVID-19 in hospitalised adults and could be deployed as a front door triage tool.
trial registrationISRCTN14966673.
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.