ArticlePloS one2024
Real-world use of multiplex point-of-care molecular testing or laboratory-based molecular testing for influenza-like illness in a 2021 to 2022 US outpatient sample.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular point-of-care: technological evolution, clinical applications, and future perspectives.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Severity of respiratory syncytial virus versus SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and influenza infection amongst hospitalized Singaporean adults: a national cohort study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- An evaluation of barriers and facilitators to implementing multiplex rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A and B in congregate living settings.Frontiers in public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While molecular testing is recommended for symptomatic patients suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), limited data are available examining real-world use of tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 testing on patient outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study using de-identified administrative claims data in the Optum Labs Data Warehouse, we identified 2 groups of patients with ≥1 outpatient claims with a procedure code for SARS-CoV-2 testing between January 2021 and September 2022. Group 1 had ≥1 claims with CPT code 0240U or 0241U ("Xpert Xpress") (N = 51,602); Group 2 had ≥1 claims for laboratory-based molecular testing (N = 317,192). Outcomes assessed on the identification date and through the 90-day follow-up included claims evidence of use of SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) tests, diagnosis of active COVID-19, influenza, or RSV, and use of treatments (antivirals for COVID-19, influenza, and RSV and other treatments for COVID-19 and RSV). Patients in Group 1 had fewer tests for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, or RSV (mean ± standard deviation 1.6±1.4 versus 2.6±2.6, standardized difference -0.45), faster time to diagnosis of COVID-19 (median 0 versus 4 days, standardized difference -0.27) or influenza (median 0 versus 5 days, standardized difference -0.74), and faster time to treatment of COVID-19, influenza, or RSV (median 1 versus 5 days, standardized difference 0.16) than patients in Group 2. In this nationwide real-world study of outpatient testing, use of point-of-care molecular multiplex SARS-CoV-2 testing resulted in fewer claims for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and RSV tests, faster time to diagnosis, and faster time to treatment than laboratory-based molecular testing.
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.