ArticleInternational journal of clinical practice2021
Utility of the FebriDx point-of-care test for rapid triage and identification of possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Article in International journal of clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 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
- 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
- Developing a Tool for Differentiation Between Bacterial and Viral Respiratory Infections Using Myxovirus Resistance Protein A and C-Reactive Protein.Infectious diseases and therapy · 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
- Observational
- Diagnostic Accuracy of a Bacterial and Viral Biomarker Point-of-Care Test in the Outpatient Setting.JAMA network open · 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
- Observational
- Utility of the FebriDx point-of-care test for rapid triage and identification of possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).International journal of clinical practice · 2021Article
- Economic Evaluation of FebriDx®: A Novel Rapid, Point-of-Care Test for Differentiation of Viral versus Bacterial Acute Respiratory Infection in the United States.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 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
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is straining healthcare resources. Molecular testing turnaround time precludes having results at the point-of-care (POC) thereby exposing COVID-19/Non-COVID-19 patients while awaiting diagnosis. We evaluated the utility of a triage strategy including FebriDx, a 10-minute POC finger-stick blood test that differentiates viral from bacterial acute respiratory infection through detection of Myxovirus-resistance protein A (MxA) and C-reactive protein (CRP), to rapidly isolate viral cases requiring confirmatory testing.
methodsThis observational, prospective, single-center study enrolled patients presenting to/within an acute care hospital in England with suspected COVID-19 between March and April 2020. Immunocompetent patients ≥16 years requiring hospitalisation with pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome or influenza-like illness (fever and ≥1 respiratory symptom within 7 days of enrolment, or inpatients with new respiratory symptoms, fever of unknown cause or pre-existing respiratory condition worsening). The primary endpoint was diagnostic performance of FebriDx to identify COVID-19 as a viral infection; secondary endpoint was SARS-CoV-2 molecular test diagnostic performance compared with the reference standard COVID-19 Case Definition (molecular or antibody detection of SARS-CoV-2).
resultsValid results were available for 47 patients. By reference standard, 35 had viral infections (34/35 COVID-19; 1/35 non-COVID-19; overall FebriDx viral sensitivity 97.1% (95%CI 83.3-99.9)). Of the COVID-19 cases, 34/34 were FebriDx viral positive (sensitivity 100%; 95%CI 87.4-100); 29/34 had an initial SARS-CoV-2 positive molecular test (sensitivity 85.3%; 95%CI 68.2-94.5). FebriDx was viral negative when the diagnosis was not COVID-19 and SARS-Cov-2 molecular test was negative (negative predictive value (NPV) 100% (13/13; 95%CI 71.7-100)) exceeding initial SARS-CoV-2 molecular test NPV 72.2% (13/19; 95%CI 46.4-89.3). The diagnostic specificity of FebriDx and initial SARS-CoV-2 molecular test was 100% (13/13; 95%CI 70-100 and 13/13; 95%CI 85.4-100, respectively).
conclusionsFebriDx could be deployed as part of a reliable triage strategy for identifying symptomatic cases as possible COVID-19 in the pandemic.
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.