ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2022
Flu@home: the Comparative Accuracy of an At-Home Influenza Rapid Diagnostic Test Using a Prepositioned Test Kit, Mobile App, Mail-in Reference Sample, and Symptom-Based Testing Trigger.
Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Characterization of Influenza-Like Illness Burden Using Commercial Wearable Sensor Data and Patient-Reported Outcomes: Mixed Methods Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Feasibility of self-testing for acute malaria using rapid diagnostic tests in three peri-urban sub-Saharan African community settings.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Malaria RDT (mRDT) interpretation accuracy by frontline health workers compared to AI in Kano state, Nigeria.BMC digital health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Machine Learning to Detect Influenza Using Wearable Sensor Data and Patient-Reported Symptoms: Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- Use of Rapid Antigen Triple Test Nasal Swabs (COVID-VIRO ALL-IN TRIPLEX: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, and Influenza) in Children With Respiratory Symptoms: A Real-life Prospective Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Co-evolution of immunity and seasonal influenza viruses.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2023Review
- Viral load quantitation at the point-of-care with shaken digital droplet RT-LAMP.Lab on a chip · 2023Article
- Requirements and Study Designs for U.S. Regulatory Approval of Influenza Home Tests.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
At-home testing with rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for respiratory viruses could facilitate early diagnosis, guide patient care, and prevent transmission. Such RDTs are best used near the onset of illness when viral load is highest and clinical action will be most impactful, which may be achieved by at-home testing. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the QuickVue Influenza A+B RDT in an at-home setting. A convenience sample of 5,229 individuals who were engaged with an on-line health research platform were prospectively recruited throughout the United States. "Flu@home" test kits containing a QuickVue RDT and reference sample collection and shipping materials were prepositioned with participants at the beginning of the study. Participants responded to daily symptom surveys. If they reported experiencing cough along with aches, fever, chills, and/or sweats, they used their flu@home kit following instructions on a mobile app and indicated what lines they saw on the RDT. Of the 976 participants who met criteria to use their self-collection kit and completed study procedures, 202 (20.7%) were positive for influenza by qPCR. The RDT had a sensitivity of 28% (95% CI = 21 to 36) and specificity of 99% (98 to 99) for influenza A, and 32% (95% CI = 20 to 46) and 99% (95% CI = 98 to 99), for influenza B. Our results support the concept of app-supported, prepositioned at-home RDT kits using symptom-based triggers, although it cannot be recommended with the RDT used in this study. Further research is needed to determine ways to improve the accuracy and utility of home-based testing for influenza.
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.