2021
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12010009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panels 1, 2, 3, and BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel for the Detection of Respiratory Infections

Abstract: Multiplex nucleic acid amplification assays that simultaneously detect multiple respiratory pathogens in a single nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimen are widely used for rapid clinical diagnostics. We evaluated Allplex Respiratory Panel (RP) 1, 2, 3, and the BioFire FilmArray RP assay for detecting respiratory pathogens from NPS specimens. In all, 181 NPS specimens obtained from patients suspected of having respiratory infections during the non-influenza season (August–December 2019) were included. The Allplex … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The two settings of testing (for inpatients and emergency department settings) were both available in both periods (pre and pandemic‐periods) and, evaluating the same pattern of respiratory viruses (with the only exeption of SARS‐CoV‐2, which was not considered in this study), their use should not have had any impact on respiratory virus detection changes before and during the pandemic. In terms of sensitivity, studies showed concordant performance of the AllPlex respiratory panels, QIAstat RP, Eplex, and the FilmArray panels for the simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory viruses 14–16 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The two settings of testing (for inpatients and emergency department settings) were both available in both periods (pre and pandemic‐periods) and, evaluating the same pattern of respiratory viruses (with the only exeption of SARS‐CoV‐2, which was not considered in this study), their use should not have had any impact on respiratory virus detection changes before and during the pandemic. In terms of sensitivity, studies showed concordant performance of the AllPlex respiratory panels, QIAstat RP, Eplex, and the FilmArray panels for the simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory viruses 14–16 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In terms of sensitivity, studies showed concordant performance of the AllPlex respiratory panels, QIAstat RP, Eplex, and the FilmArray panels for the simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory viruses [14][15][16] 1. Children hospitalized in the covid period had a higher probability of being female (p = .012), having underlying diseases (p = .013) and signs and symptoms of dyspnea (p = .01), and lower respiratory tract abnormalities (e.g., chest retractions, p = .002).…”
Section: Kits For Respiratory Virusesmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Their findings showed that the concordance between the FilmArray TM system and viral culture was 94.5% [ 56 ]. Similarly, Lade H et al indicated that the FilmArray TM RP assay is easy to work and provide rapid identification of respiratory viruses [ 57 ]. Moreover, Tazi S et al [ 31 ] showed that the estimated sensitivity and specificity of FilmArray, compared with the MAScIR SARS-CoV-2 M kit 2.0, were 100% and 79.2%, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used several panels: The two settings of testing (for inpatients and emergency department settings) were both available in both periods (pre-and pandemic-periods) and, evaluating the same pattern of respiratory viruses (with the only exception of SARS-CoV-2, which was not considered in this study), their use should not have had any impact on respiratory virus detection changes before and during the pandemic. In terms of sensitivity, studies showed concordant performance of the AllPlex respiratory panels, QIAstat RP, Eplex, and the FilmArray panels for the simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory viruses [8][9][10].…”
Section: Kits For Respiratory Virusesmentioning
confidence: 96%