• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Med Virol . Comparative Evaluation of Three Rapid Influenza Diagnostic Tests for Detection of Influenza A and B Viruses Using RT-PCR as Reference

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Med Virol


. 2025 Jan;97(1):e70162.
doi: 10.1002/jmv.70162. Comparative Evaluation of Three Rapid Influenza Diagnostic Tests for Detection of Influenza A and B Viruses Using RT-PCR as Reference Method

Hailun Yin[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Wenjuan Wu[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Yuyang Lv[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Hanlin Kou[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yuzhen Sun[SUP] 3 [/SUP]



Affiliations
Abstract

To evaluate the performance of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) for detecting influenza A and B viruses compared to RT-PCR. A total of 291 subjects with acute respiratory infections were enrolled. Respiratory specimens were collected and tested for influenza A and B viruses using three RIDTs. The results were compared with those obtained using an RT-PCR assay from Shanghai Berger Medical Technology Co. Ltd. as the reference method. Among the 291 subjects, 119 (40.9%) tested positive for influenza A virus and 38 (13.1%) for influenza B virus by RT-PCR. The sensitivities of the three RIDTs for influenza A virus were 92.4%, 89.1%, and 79.8%, respectively, while their specificities were 98.8%, 98.8%, and 100%, respectively. For influenza B virus, the sensitivities of the three RIDTs were 92.1%, 92.1%, and 73.7%, respectively, and their specificities were 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. The positive predictive values (PPVs) for influenza A virus were 98.2%, 98.1%, and 100%, respectively, while the negative predictive values (NPVs) were 94.5%, 92.4%, and 86.9%, respectively. For influenza B virus, the PPVs were all 100%, and the NPVs were 99.2%, 99.2%, and 97.7%, respectively. The three evaluated RIDTs demonstrated high specificity but varied sensitivity for detecting influenza A and B viruses. Negative results from RIDTs should be confirmed by RT-PCR, especially during peak influenza seasons. The high PPVs suggest that positive RIDT results are reliable for influenza diagnosis, while the high NPVs indicate that negative results are more likely to be true negatives.

Keywords: influenza A and B viruses; rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs); reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR).

 
Back
Top