Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35191852›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2022

Diagnostic Accuracy of an At-Home, Rapid Self-test for Influenza: Prospective Comparative Accuracy Study.

Rachel E Geyer, Jack Henry Kotnik, Victoria Lyon, Elisabeth Brandstetter, Monica Zigman Suchsland, Peter D Han, Chelsey Graham, Misja Ilcisin, Ashley E Kim, Helen Y Chu and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Critical lessons from a pragmatic randomized trial of home-based COVID-19 testing in rural Native American and Latino communities.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2024
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. At-home infectious disease testing: An idea whose time has come.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rachel E Geyer *Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0223-3070
Jack Henry Kotnik *Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1267-4099
Victoria LyonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5669-1099
Elisabeth BrandstetterDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0521-4131
Monica Zigman SuchslandDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7007-6973
Peter D HanBrotman Baty Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2266-1008
Chelsey GrahamMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1998-6888
Misja IlcisinVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1468-7697
Ashley E KimDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0247-1346
Helen Y ChuDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8502-9600
Deborah A NickersonBrotman Baty Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9954-4897
Lea M StaritaBrotman Baty Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2870-5099
Trevor BedfordBrotman Baty Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4039-5794
Barry LutzDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4298-4901
Matthew J ThompsonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4331-3758
University of Washington · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USMassachusetts Institute of Technology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for influenza used by individuals at home could potentially expand access to testing and reduce the impact of influenza on health systems. Improving access to testing could lead to earlier diagnosis following symptom onset, allowing more rapid interventions for those who test positive, including behavioral changes to minimize spread. However, the accuracy of RDTs for influenza has not been determined in self-testing populations.

objectiveThis study aims to assess the accuracy of an influenza RDT conducted at home by lay users with acute respiratory illness compared with that of a self-collected sample by the same individual mailed to a laboratory for reference testing.

methodsWe conducted a comparative accuracy study of an at-home influenza RDT (Ellume) in a convenience sample of individuals experiencing acute respiratory illness symptoms. Participants were enrolled in February and March 2020 from the Greater Seattle region in Washington, United States. Participants were mailed the influenza RDT and reference sample collection materials, which they completed and returned for quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction influenza testing in a central laboratory. We explored the impact of age, influenza type, duration, and severity of symptoms on RDT accuracy and on cycle threshold for influenza virus and ribonuclease P, a marker of human DNA.

resultsA total of 605 participants completed all study steps and were included in our analysis, of whom 87 (14.4%) tested positive for influenza by quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (70/87, 80% for influenza A and 17/87, 20% for influenza B). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the RDT compared with the reference test were 61% (95% CI 50%-71%) and 95% (95% CI 93%-97%), respectively. Among individuals with symptom onset ≤72 hours, sensitivity was 63% (95% CI 48%-76%) and specificity was 94% (95% CI 91%-97%), whereas, for those with duration >72 hours, sensitivity and specificity were 58% (95% CI 41%-74%) and 96% (95% CI 93%-98%), respectively. Viral load on reference swabs was negatively correlated with symptom onset, and quantities of the endogenous marker gene ribonuclease P did not differ among reference standard positive and negative groups, age groups, or influenza subtypes. The RDT did not have higher sensitivity or specificity among those who reported more severe illnesses.

conclusionsThe sensitivity and specificity of the self-test were comparable with those of influenza RDTs used in clinical settings. False-negative self-test results were more common when the test was used after 72 hours of symptom onset but were not related to inadequate swab collection or severity of illness. Therefore, the deployment of home tests may provide a valuable tool to support the management of influenza and other respiratory infections.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanHumansProspective StudiesRibonuclease PSelf-TestingSensitivity and SpecificityRibonuclease Pacute respiratory illnesshome collectionhome testinginfluenzamHealthmobile healthmobile phonerapid testingself-collectionself-testing

Identifiers

PMID35191852
PMCPMC8905479
OpenAlexW3217515644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.