Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35941563›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022

RSV testing practice and positivity by patient demographics in the United States: integrated analyses of MarketScan and NREVSS databases.

Phuong T Tran, Sabina O Nduaguba, Vakaramoko Diaby, Yoonyoung Choi, Almut G Winterstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. 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. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Phuong T TranDepartment of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, 1225 Center Drive, PO Box 100496, Gainesville, FL, 32611-0496, USA.
Sabina O NduagubaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, 1225 Center Drive, PO Box 100496, Gainesville, FL, 32611-0496, USA.
Vakaramoko DiabyDepartment of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, 1225 Center Drive, PO Box 100496, Gainesville, FL, 32611-0496, USA.
Yoonyoung ChoiCenter for Observational and Real-World Evidence, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
Almut G WintersteinDepartment of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, 1225 Center Drive, PO Box 100496, Gainesville, FL, 32611-0496, USA. almut@ufl.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRSV-incidence estimates obtained from routinely-collected healthcare data (e.g., MarketScan) are commonly adjusted for under-reporting using test positivity reported in national Surveillance Systems (NREVSS). However, NREVSS lacks detail on patient-level characteristics and the validity of applying a single positivity estimate across diverse patient groups is uncertain. We aimed to describe testing practices and test positivity across subgroups of private health insurance enrollees in the US and illustrate the possible magnitude of misclassification when using NREVSS to correct for RSV under ascertainment.

methodsUsing billing records, we determined distributions of RSV-test claims and test positivity among a national sample of private insurance enrollees. Tests were considered positive if they coincided with an RSV-diagnosis. We illustrated the influence of positivity variation across sub-populations when accounting for untested acute respiratory infections.

resultsMost tests were for children (age 0-4: 65.8%) and outpatient encounters (78.3%). Test positivity varied across age (0-4: 19.8%, 5-17: 1.8%, adults: 0.7%), regions (7.6-16.1%), settings (inpatient 4.7%, outpatient 14.2%), and test indication (5.0-35.9%). When compared to age, setting or indication-specific positivity, bias due to using NREVSS positivity to correct for untested ARIs ranged from - 76% to 3556%.

conclusionsRSV-test positivity depends on the characteristics of patients for whom those tests were ordered. NREVSS-based correction for RSV-under-ascertainment underestimates the true incidence among children and overestimate rates among adults. Demographic-specific detail on testing practice and positivity can improve the accuracy of RSV-incidence estimates.

Indexed as

Respiratory Syncytial Virus InfectionsRespiratory Tract InfectionsAdultChildChild, PreschoolHumansIncidenceInfantInfant, NewbornPopulation SurveillanceUncertaintyUnited StatesAntibody testAntigen testAutomated healthcare dataCDC’s National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance SystemPCR testRespiratory syncytial virusRSVRSV epidemiologyRSV measurementViral culture

Identifiers

PMID35941563
PMCPMC9360654

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.