ArticlePloS one2022
Comparing the cobas Influenza A/B Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas Liat System (Liat) with rapid antigen tests for clinical management of Japanese patients at the point of care.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid diagnosis of influenza is critical in preventing the spread of infection and ensuring patients quickly receive antiviral medication to reduce the severity and duration of influenza symptoms, whilst controlling the spread of the causative virus. In Japan patients are often administered anti-influenza medication following a positive rapid antigen detection test (RADT) result. However, the sensitivity of RADTs can lead to false negative results. The cobas® Influenza A/B Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas Liat® System (Liat) is a molecular point-of-care method that can provide a more sensitive alternative to RADTs for rapid influenza diagnosis and treatment.
methodsIn this prospective multicenter study, diagnostic performance of the Liat test was compared with RADTs in patients presenting with influenza-like-illness. Test performance was also assessed by time since symptom onset.
resultsOf 419 patients enrolled, 413 were evaluable for all designated tests. Most patients had type-A infection, and only one patient had influenza type B. In 413 patients, the sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) of the Liat test were 99.5% (97.2-99.9%) and 99.5% (97.4-99.9%), respectively, and were 79.7% (73.5-84.7%) and 95.4% (91.7-97.5%) for RADTs. For patients tested <12 hours from symptom onset, the Liat test had significantly higher sensitivity than RADTs (p<0.0001).
conclusionOverall, compared with standard of care RADTs, the Liat test was more sensitive and specific in children and adults, particularly in the early stages of infection. Greater sensitivity can enable earlier diagnosis and may better inform appropriate antiviral 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.