• Laura M Vos, Andrea H L Bruning, Johannes B Reitsma, Rob Schuurman, Annelies Riezebos-Brilman, Hoepelman Andy I M AIM Department of Infectious Diseases, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, The Netherlands., and Jan Jelrik Oosterheert.
• Department of Infectious Diseases, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
• Clin. Infect. Dis. 2019 Sep 13; 69 (7): 1243-1253.

AbstractWe systematically reviewed available evidence from Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library on diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of commercially available rapid (results <3 hours) molecular diagnostics for respiratory viruses as compared to conventional molecular tests. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions criteria for randomized and observational impact studies, respectively. Sixty-three DTA reports (56 studies) were meta-analyzed with a pooled sensitivity of 90.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.7%-93.1%) and specificity of 96.1% (95% CI, 94.2%-97.9%) for the detection of either influenza virus (n = 29), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) (n = 1), influenza virus and RSV (n = 19), or a viral panel including influenza virus and RSV (n = 14). The 15 included impact studies (5 randomized) were very heterogeneous and results were therefore inconclusive. However, we suggest that implementation of rapid diagnostics in hospital care settings should be considered.© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

25 keywords...

hide…