Hoffmann, R. A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nature Genetics (2008)

Editor

Personal info

View

About

Terms

Javascript disabled

Please enable Javascript support in your browser to use this application.

Instructions on how to enable JavaScript on different browsers can be found here: http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=23852.

[edit this page]

Sambol, A.R. et al.

Anthony R. Sambol, Baha Abdalhamid, Elizabeth R. Lyden, Tricia A. Aden, Rhonda K. Noel, Steven H. Hinrichs,

Use of rapid influenza diagnostic tests under field conditions as a screening tool during an outbreak of the 2009 novel influenza virus: practical considerations.

BACKGROUND: Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) are used in various settings as a first-line screen of patient specimens. During the initial outbreak of the 2009 novel influenza A/H1N1 virus, the Nebraska Public Health Laboratory (NPHL) adopted a testing algorithm, attempting to maximize the usefulness of RIDTs. However, it became apparent that a high percentage of the positive specimens received from off-site facilities were negative for influenza viruses by the confirmatory test, the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel (RVP) molecular assay. OBJECTIVES: To explore the cause of discrepancies between RIDTs results obtained from on-site facility testing versus confirmatory testing performed at NPHL. STUDY DESIGN: Specimens (n=336) tested with RIDTs at off-site facilities and screened for high-probability of containing H1N1 were sent to the NPHL for confirmatory testing by RVP. RESULTS: Of 336 specimens analyzed, 104 were negative for influenza A or B by both RIDT and RVP; 127 were positive by both tests; 102 were positive by RIDT only; and 3 were positive by RVP only. Using the RVP assay as the gold standard, overall RIDT characteristics in this screened population were: sensitivity=97.7% (95%CI: 92.5, 99.3); specificity=48.1% (95%CI: 40.4, 55.8); positive predictive value=54.3% (95%CI: 47.0, 61.4); and negative predicative value=97.1% (95%CI: 90.6, 99.1). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the confirmation of RIDT-positive results varied widely by testing site. Possible explanations for the discrepancies in performance characteristics include testing a narrowly defined sample population, test facility characteristics, facility work load, and seasonal timing.[1]

References

Use of rapid influenza diagnostic tests under field conditions as a screening tool during an outbreak of the 2009 novel influenza virus: practical considerations. Sambol, A.R., Abdalhamid, B., Lyden, E.R., Aden, T.A., Noel, R.K., Hinrichs, S.H. J. Clin. Virol. (2010) [Pubmed]

Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenes Open Access Licence Privacy Policy Terms of Use apsburg

The world's first wiki where authorship really matters (Nature Genetics, 2008). Due credit and reputation for authors. Imagine a global collaborative knowledge base for original thoughts. Search thousands of articles and collaborate with scientists around the globe.