ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2024
Performance evaluation of influenza a rapid antigen test and PCR among nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2024. 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.
- Effectiveness of a digital communication and active recall strategy to improve pediatric influenza vaccination in primary care: a prospective observational study.BMC public health · 2026Observational
- Hospital Influenza Outbreak Management in the Post-COVID Era: A Narrative Review of Evolving Practices and Feasibility Considerations.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Should public health policy exempt cases with low viral load from isolation during an epidemic?: a modelling study.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2025Article
- Adult Influenza Patients Diagnosed by Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Tests, but Not Rapid Antigen Tests, and Managed Successfully During the 2024 to 2025 Major Influenza-Endemic Season in a Tertiary Hospital in Japan.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Rapid antigen test (RAT) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using nasopharyngeal (NP) or oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens are the two main testing techniques used for laboratory diagnosis of influenza in clinical practice. However, performance variations have been observed not only between techniques, but also between different specimens. This study evaluated the differences in performance between specimens and testing techniques to identify the best combination in clinical practice. Methods: Both NP and OP samples from suspected influenza patients collected in the 2023/4-2023/5 Flu-season in Xiamen, China, were tested for RAT and quantitative PCR. The testing performance of the different specimens and testing techniques were recorded and evaluated. Results: Compared to PCR, RAT showed 58.9 % and 10.3 % sensitivity for NP and OP swabs, respectively. The Limit of Detection (LoD) was 28.71 the Median Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID Conclusions: There were no significant differences in performance between the specimens when PCR was used to test for influenza. However, a decrease in sensitivity was observed when the RAT was used, regardless of the specimen type. Therefore, to avoid false-negative results, PCR may be a better choice when OP swabs are used as specimens. In contrast, NP swabs should be the recommended specimens for RAT.
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.