Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35854475›Full record

ArticleThe journal of applied laboratory medicine2023

Summarizing Study Characteristics and Diagnostic Performance of Commercially Available Tests for Respiratory Syncytial Virus: A Scoping Literature Review in the COVID-19 Era.

David I Bernstein, Asuncion Mejias, Barbara Rath, Christopher W Woods, Jamie Phillips Deeter

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of applied laboratory medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Modeling the Transmission Mitigation Impact of Testing for Infectious Diseases.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

David I BernsteinCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Asuncion MejiasDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, Nationwide Children's Hospital, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5983-8006
Barbara RathVienna Vaccine Safety Initiative, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5181-8417
Christopher W WoodsESCMID Study Group for Respiratory Viruses (ESGREV), Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7240-2453
Jamie Phillips DeeterESCMID Study Group for Respiratory Viruses (ESGREV), Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 also decreased the spread of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza. Viral diagnostic testing in patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) is a necessary tool for patient management; therefore, sensitive and specific tests are required. This scoping literature review aimed to summarize the study characteristics of commercially available sample-to-answer RSV tests. CONTENT: PubMed and Embase were queried for studies reporting on the diagnostic performance of tests for RSV in patients with RTI (published January 2005-January 2021). Information on study design, patient and setting characteristics, and published diagnostic performance of RSV tests were extracted from 77 studies that met predefined inclusion criteria. A literature gap was identified for studies of RSV tests conducted in adult-only populations (5.3% of total subrecords) and in outpatient (7.5%) or household (0.8%) settings. Overall, RSV tests with analytical time >30 min had higher published sensitivity (62.5%-100%) vs RSV tests with analytical time ≤30 min (25.7%-100%); this sensitivity range could be partially attributed to the different modalities (antigen vs molecular) used. Molecular-based rapid RSV tests had higher published sensitivity (66.7%-100%) and specificity (94.3%-100%) than antigen-based RSV tests (sensitivity: 25.7%-100%; specificity:80.3%-100%). SUMMARY: This scoping review reveals a paucity of literature on studies of RSV tests in specific populations and settings, highlighting the need for further assessments. Considering the implications of these results in the current pandemic landscape, the authors preliminarily suggest adopting molecular-based RSV tests for first-line use in these settings.

Indexed as

COVID-19Influenza, HumanRespiratory Syncytial Virus, HumanRespiratory Syncytial Virus InfectionsRespiratory Tract InfectionsAdultCOVID-19 TestingHumansSensitivity and Specificityclinicalinfectious diseasemolecular diagnosticsnucleic-acid-based testingpoint-of-care testing systemsviral diseases

Identifiers

PMID35854475
PMCPMC9384538

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.