ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2022
Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent updates of interferon-derived myxovirus resistance protein A as a biomarker for acute viral infection.European journal of medical research · 2024Review
- Evaluation of a Novel Point-of-Care Blood Myxovirus Resistance Protein A Measurement for the Detection of Viral Infection at the Pediatric Emergency Department.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Observational
- Understanding respiratory disease 'due to' or 'with' COVID-19 to assess appropriate treatment.Journal of postgraduate medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRT-PCR has suboptimal sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19. A composite reference standard comprising RT-PCR plus radiological and clinical features has been recommended for diagnostic accuracy studies. The FebriDx finger prick point-of-care test detects an antiviral host response protein (MxA) in 10 min. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx and RT-PCR compared to a composite reference standard.
methodsAdults presenting to hospital with suspected COVID-19 were tested by FebriDx and RT-PCR. A composite reference standard was used to classify patients as having COVID-19 based on RT-PCR positivity, or RT-PCR negativity with COVID-19 radiological findings or other clinical criteria. Measures of accuracy were calculated for MxA alone, RT-PCR alone, and both combined. This study is registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN14966673) and has completed.
resultsA total of 478 patients were tested, with valid results in 475. Of these 475 patients, 222 (46.7%) were classified as having COVID-19; 192 (40.4%) were RT-PCR positive, and 30 (6.3%) were RT-PCR negative and diagnosed on radiological/clinical criteria. Sensitivity of FebriDx MxA vs the composite reference standard was 186/222 (83.8%, 95% CI 78.3-88.4) and was similar to the sensitivity of RT-PCR (192/222 (86.5%, 95% CI 81.3-90.7), (difference of 2.7%, 95% CI - 3.9 to 9.3, p = 0.42). The sensitivity of combined FebriDx and RT-PCR was 208/222 (93.7%) which was superior to both RT-PCR alone (difference of 9.9, 95% CI 4.1-15.9; p = 0.001) and FebriDx MxA alone (difference of 7.2, 95% CI 1.6-12.9; p = 0.011).
conclusionSensitivity of combined FebriDx and RT-PCR testing was superior to each alone for the detection of COVID-19 in hospital and may improve infection control and treatment decisions.
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.