ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2024
Performance comparison of three commercial multiplex molecular panels for respiratory viruses at a South African academic hospital.
Article in African journal of laboratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Respiratory infections are a major contributor to hospital admissions. Identification of respiratory pathogens by means of conventional culture and serology methods remains challenging. Multiplex molecular assays are an appealing alternative that endeavours to be rapid, more accurate and less arduous. Objective: The study aimed to compare the clinical performance of three commercial multiplex molecular assays for respiratory viruses. Methods: Forty-eight respiratory specimens obtained from patients at Tygerberg Hospital in the Western Cape province of South Africa were studied. These specimens were collected between May 2020 and August 2020. The results of the Seegene Anyplex™ II RV16, FilmArray Results: The overall sensitivity of the Seegene Anyplex™ II RV16 was 96.6% (57/59), the FARP 98.2% (56/57) and the QRP 80.7% (46/57). The overall specificities were 99.8% (660/661), 99.0% (704/711) and 99.7% (709/711), respectively. The QRP failed to detect coronaviruses and parainfluenza viruses in 41.7% (5/12) and 28.6% (4/14) of positive specimens, respectively, while the FARP produced the lowest target specificity of 88.4% (38/43) for rhinovirus/enterovirus. Conclusion: The overall specificity of all three platforms was comparable; however, the sensitivity of the QRP was inferior to that of the ARV and FARP. What this study adds: This study adds to the body of performance characteristics described for respiratory multiplex panels, especially in the African context where molecular diagnostics for infectious diseases are gaining momentum.
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.