ArticleJournal of medical virology2025
Comparative Evaluation of Three Rapid Influenza Diagnostic Tests for Detection of Influenza A and B Viruses Using RT-PCR as Reference Method.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2025. 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.
- Electrochemical and optical biosensors as transformative tools for multiplex detection of influenza viruses.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Update on Influenza.The American journal of the medical sciences · 2026Review
- Hospital Influenza Outbreak Management in the Post-COVID Era: A Narrative Review of Evolving Practices and Feasibility Considerations.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- How to identify respiratory pathogens in primary health care - a review on the benefits, prospects and pitfalls in using point of care tests.Infection · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the performance of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) for detecting influenza A and B viruses compared to RT-PCR. A total of 291 subjects with acute respiratory infections were enrolled. Respiratory specimens were collected and tested for influenza A and B viruses using three RIDTs. The results were compared with those obtained using an RT-PCR assay from Shanghai Berger Medical Technology Co. Ltd. as the reference method. Among the 291 subjects, 119 (40.9%) tested positive for influenza A virus and 38 (13.1%) for influenza B virus by RT-PCR. The sensitivities of the three RIDTs for influenza A virus were 92.4%, 89.1%, and 79.8%, respectively, while their specificities were 98.8%, 98.8%, and 100%, respectively. For influenza B virus, the sensitivities of the three RIDTs were 92.1%, 92.1%, and 73.7%, respectively, and their specificities were 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. The positive predictive values (PPVs) for influenza A virus were 98.2%, 98.1%, and 100%, respectively, while the negative predictive values (NPVs) were 94.5%, 92.4%, and 86.9%, respectively. For influenza B virus, the PPVs were all 100%, and the NPVs were 99.2%, 99.2%, and 97.7%, respectively. The three evaluated RIDTs demonstrated high specificity but varied sensitivity for detecting influenza A and B viruses. Negative results from RIDTs should be confirmed by RT-PCR, especially during peak influenza seasons. The high PPVs suggest that positive RIDT results are reliable for influenza diagnosis, while the high NPVs indicate that negative results are more likely to be true negatives.
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.