ReviewInfection2025
How to identify respiratory pathogens in primary health care - a review on the benefits, prospects and pitfalls in using point of care tests.
Review in Infection, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRespiratory tract infections are among the most common reasons for consultations in primary health care (PHC) settings. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of diagnostic tests for selected respiratory pathogens useful in PHC.
methodsWe performed a PubMed search on diagnostic tests for influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Streptococcus pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Bordetella pertussis. We then selected and summarized clinical trials, meta-analyses and systematic reviews published between May 1994 and April 2025 relevant to PHC.
resultsDiagnostic tests are useful if the test result will guide subsequent clinical management. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests have high diagnostic accuracy but are not always available in PHC. Accurate rapid antigen detections tests (RADTs) are required to have a sensitivity of at least 80% and a specificity of at least 97% and are available for influenza virus, RSV and SARS-CoV-2 as are urinary antigen tests for Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila. In contrast, due to the lack of appropriate RADTs, infections with Mycoplasma pneumoniae or Bordetella pertussis typically require PCR tests.
conclusionFrom a clinical perspective, the differentiation between viral and bacterial infections and the accurate identification of the specific causative agent may guide medical interventions including antimicrobial therapy. From a diagnostic perspective, adequate microbiologic sampling and careful interpretation of laboratory test results in a clinical context are central requirements.
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.