Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36554585›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Diagnostic Study to Assess the Performance of a New Urinary

Ziad El-Khatib, Lukas Richter, Jutta Ressler, Bernhard Benka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Ziad El-KhatibInstitute for Surveillance & Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Währingerstrasse 25a, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-0756-7280
Lukas RichterInstitute for Surveillance & Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Währingerstrasse 25a, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6982-6239
Jutta ResslerInstitute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Währingerstrasse 25a, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Bernhard BenkaInstitute for Surveillance & Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Währingerstrasse 25a, 1090 Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe evaluated the performance of a rapid diagnostic antigen test (Coris) as an index test versus the urinary Antigen ELISA (Bartels) as the reference test.

methodsProspective diagnostic accuracy study (2014-2017) at three university hospitals in Austria.

resultsA total of 996 patients were included in the study. Legionellosis was diagnosed in 49/996 (4.9%) using the reference test. The sensitivity and specificity of the Coris test were 75.5% (95% CI 61.1-86.7%) and 100% (95%CI 99.6-100%), respectively. The PPV was 100% and when using the lower 95% CI limit of the estimate for sensitivity, the resulting PPV was 61.1%. The NPV was 98.7% and the accuracy was 98.8%. The index test showed a PPV > 97% during the period of summer and autumn (May through November) and ≥88% during winter (December through February). The NPV was >97% during all of the periods. The median of the monthly incidence in the general population was 0.1 per 100,000 (IQR 0.1; 0.3).

conclusionThe new rapid test gave a high level of diagnostic accuracy in a rapid fashion. The test can be applied at the bedside by non-laboratory staff.

Indexed as

LegionellaUrinalysisAntigens, BacterialAustriaHospitals, UniversityHumansProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, BacterialAustriaELISALegionellarapid testing

Identifiers

PMID36554585
PMCPMC9779764

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.