ArticleTuberculosis and respiratory diseases2021
Diagnostic Accuracy of the Quidel Sofia Rapid Influenza Fluorescent Immunoassay in Patients with Influenza-like Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests for acute respiratory infection: a systematic review of reviews.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Point-of-care and Home Use Influenza Diagnostics for Advancing Therapeutic and Public Health Strategies.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Single-Center Experience in Detecting Influenza Virus, RSV and SARS-CoV-2 at the Emergency Department.Viruses · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the Quidel Sofia rapid influenza fluorescent immunoassay (FIA) is widely used to identify influenza A and B, the diagnostic accuracy of this test remains unclear. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of this test compared to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and a hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (HSROC) of this test for identifying influenza A and B were determined using meta-analysis. A sensitivity subgroup analysis was performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity within selected studies.
resultsWe identified 17 studies involving 8,334 patients. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of the Quidel Sofia rapid influenza FIA for identifying influenza A were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.83), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99), and 251.26 (95% CI, 139.39-452.89), respectively. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of this test for identifying influenza B were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.60-0.82), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99), and 140.20 (95% CI, 55.92-351.54), respectively. The area under the HSROC for this test for identifying influenza A was similar to that for identifying influenza B. Age was considered a probable source of heterogeneity.
conclusionPooled sensitivities of the Quidel Sofia rapid influenza FIA for identifying influenza A and B did not quite meet the target level (≥80%). Thus, caution is needed when interpreting data of this study due to substantial between-study heterogeneity.
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.