ArticleThe journal of applied laboratory medicine2020
Repeat Molecular Testing for Respiratory Pathogens: Diagnostic Gain or Diminishing Returns?
Article in The journal of applied laboratory medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-COVID-19 pandemic changes in pertussis incidence among patients with acute respiratory tract infections in Zhejiang, China.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Roles for Pathogen Interference in Influenza Vaccination, with Implications to Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) and Attribution of Influenza Deaths.Infectious disease reports · 2022Review
- Impact of FilmArray™ Respiratory Panel testing on the clinical management of pediatric bone marrow transplant patients.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUpper respiratory tract infections are common, and the ability to accurately and rapidly diagnose the causative pathogen has important implications for patient management.
methodsWe evaluated the test-ordering practices for 2 commonly utilized nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for the detection of respiratory pathogens: the Xpert Flu Assay for influenza A/B (Flu assay) and the Biofire FilmArray respiratory panel assay (RP assay), which detects 20 different targets. Our study examined repeat testing; that is, testing within 7 days from an initial test.
resultsOur study found that repeat testing is common for each of the individual assays: 3.0% of all Flu assays and 10.0% of all RP assays were repeat testing. Of repeat testing, 8/293 (2.7%) of repeat Flu assays and 75/1257 (6.0%) of RP assays resulted diagnostic gains, i.e., new detections. However, for the RP assay, these new detections were not always clinically actionable. The most frequently discrepant organisms were rhinovirus/enterovirus (28/102, 27.5%), followed by respiratory syncytial virus (12/102, 11.8%) and coronavirus OC43 (11/102, 10.8%). Furthermore, there were 3,336 instances in which a patient was tested using both a Flu assay and RP assay, of which only 44 (1.3%) had discrepant influenza results.
conclusionsOur findings suggest opportunities exist to better guide ordering practices for respiratory pathogen testing, including limiting repeat testing, with the goal of optimization of clinical yield, and diagnostic stewardship.
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.