Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test

Ryu, Sook Won; Suh, In Bum; Ryu, Se Min; Shin, Kuk Hyun; Kim, Hyun Sook; Kim, Juwon; Uh, Young; Yoon, Kyung Joong

doi:10.1002/jcla.22234

Cited by 19 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these investigators did not probe the RIDT in a real clinical setting. Thus, our report is among the first studies evaluating an analyzer-based RIDT during an outbreak, showing an excellent performance comparable to RT-PCR and other recent fluorescent immunoassay-based tests (Lewandrowski et al 2013;Ryu et al 2016Ryu et al , 2018Selove and Rao 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…However, most previous studies assessed conventional immunochromatographic RIDTs, whose results may be inaccurate as they are interpreted by the human eye. Recently, novel RIDTs that include digital automatic analyzers have shown a higher sensitivity (Ryu et al 2016(Ryu et al , 2018Merckx et al 2017). Indeed, the analyzer-based RIDT evaluated here showed a limit of detection lower than other conventional observer-based RIDTs (Mori et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Some rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) are also used to rapidly support treatment decision during influenza outbreaks (Petrozzino et al 2010). Nonetheless, RIDTs' performance varies according to the prevalence of different influenza virus strains and the method used to determine their results (Makkoch et al 2012;Peci et al 2014;Ryu et al 2018). Therefore, the diagnostic accuracy of RIDTs must be validated in each population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

High performance of rapid influenza diagnostic test and variable effectiveness of influenza vaccines in Mexico

Castillejos

Cabello-Gutiérrez

Choreño-Parra

et al. 2019

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate the performance of rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDT) and influenza vaccines' effectiveness (VE) during an outbreak setting. Methods: We compared the performance of a RIDT with RT-PCR for influenza virus detection in influenzalike illness (ILI) patients enrolled during the 2016/17 season in Mexico City. Using the test-negative design, we estimated influenza VE in all participants and stratified by age, virus subtype, and vaccine type (trivalent vs quadrivalent inactivated vaccines). The protective value of some clinical variables was evaluated by regression analyses. Results: We enrolled 592 patients. RT-PCR detected 93 cases of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, 55 of AH3N2, 141 of B, and 13 A/B virus infections. RIDT showed 90.7% sensitivity and 95.7% specificity for influenza A virus detection, and 91.5% sensitivity and 95.3% specificity for influenza B virus detection. Overall VE was 33.2% (95% CI: 3.0-54.0; p = 0.02) against any laboratory-confirmed influenza infection. VE estimates against influenza B were higher for the quadrivalent vaccine. Immunization and occupational exposure were protective factors against influenza. Conclusions: The RIDT was useful to detect influenza cases during an outbreak setting. Effectiveness of 2016/17 influenza vaccines administered in Mexico was low but significant. Our data should be considered for future local epidemiological policies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

High performance of rapid influenza diagnostic test and variable effectiveness of influenza vaccines in Mexico

Castillejos

Cabello-Gutiérrez

Choreño-Parra

et al. 2019

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this respect, only faeces obtained with non-invasive procedure is not allowed. Several studies have demonstrated the efficient dPCR platform searching different viruses [20][21][22][23][24][25]. Moreover, rapid, accurate and affordable molecular technology can be predictable with particular emphasis on emerging techniques (next generation sequencing, digital PCR, point of care testing and syndromic diagnosis) to simplify viral diagnosis in the next future [24,25].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital PCR Platform as a Tool to Determine the Canine Coronavirus (CCoV) Genome in Clinical Samples

2018

Arch Vet Sci Tecnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Canine coronavirus (CCoV) is an important pathogen that affect dogs. Here we assessed a digital real-time based PCR (dPCR) for the detection of CCoV from infected AF-72 cells and directly from faeces from 100 symptomatic dogs. The results obtained from dPCR were compared to real-time TaqMan® based PCR assay (qPCR) and positive samples were submitted to phylogenetic analysis. Thus, dPCR had an equal sensitivity, 101 copies/μl of partial M CCoV gene, when compared to qPCR results with a good agreement in all analysis. These results indicated that the dPCR could be an alternative technique for the diagnosis of CCoV from clinical samples with advantage of simplicity and sensitivity.

show abstract

“…1. With quantitative synthesis, seventeen studies were included in our nal analysis [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. Table 1 summarizes the features of the included studies.…”

Section: Study Search and Characteristics And Quality Of Included Stumentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Quidel Sofia Rapid Influenza Fluorescent Immunoassay in Patients with Influenza-like illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Lee

Song

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although the Quidel Sofia rapid influenza fluorescent immunoassay (FIA) is widely used to identify influenza A and B, the diagnostic accuracy of this test remains unclear. We compared the diagnostic performances of this test with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction.Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register. The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and a hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (HSROC) of this test for identifying influenza A and B were pooled using meta-analysis. A sensitivity and subgroup analysis was used to identify potential sources of heterogeneity within the selected studies.Results: We identified seventeen studies comprising 8,334 patients. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of the Quidel Sofia rapid influenza FIA to identify influenza A were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71–0.83), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98–0.99), and 251.26 (95% CI, 139.39–452.89), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of this test to identify influenza B were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.60–0.82), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99), and 140.20 (95% CI, 55.92-351.54), respectively. The area under the HSROC for this test was similar for identification of influenza A and influenza B. Age was considered a probable source of heterogeneity.Conclusions: The pooled sensitivities of the Quidel Sofia rapid influenza FIA did not quite meet the target level (≥80%) for both influenza A and B. The interpretation of data should be carefully considered due to substantial between-study heterogeneity.

show abstract

Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test

Cited by 19 publications

References 16 publications

High performance of rapid influenza diagnostic test and variable effectiveness of influenza vaccines in Mexico

High performance of rapid influenza diagnostic test and variable effectiveness of influenza vaccines in Mexico

Digital PCR Platform as a Tool to Determine the Canine Coronavirus (CCoV) Genome in Clinical Samples

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Quidel Sofia Rapid Influenza Fluorescent Immunoassay in Patients with Influenza-like illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About