Observational studyInfection control and hospital epidemiology2024
Changes in use of multiplex respiratory panel testing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Observational study in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of multiplex panel testing on ascertainment of pertussis-attributable, non-infant deaths: national surveillance from England.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- How to identify respiratory pathogens in primary health care - a review on the benefits, prospects and pitfalls in using point of care tests.Infection · 2025Review
- Real-World Utility of the Host-Response MeMed BV Test in a Pediatric Emergency Department: A Non-Randomized Study with Optimized Antimicrobial and Diagnostic Stewardship.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 changed the epidemiology of community-acquired respiratory viruses. We explored patterns of respiratory viral testing to understand which tests are most clinically useful in the postpandemic era.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study of discharge data from PINC-AI (formerly Premier), a large administrative database. Use of multiplex nucleic acid amplification respiratory panels in acute care, including small (2-5 targets), medium (6-11), and large panels (>11), were compared between the early pandemic (03/2020-10/2020), late pandemic (11/2020-4/2021), and prepandemic respiratory season (11/2019 - 02/2020) using ANOVA.
resultsA median of 160.5 facilities contributed testing data per quarter (IQR 155.5-169.5). Prepandemic, facilities averaged 103 respiratory panels monthly (sd 138), including 79 large (sd 126), 7 medium (sd 31), and 16 small panels (sd 73). Relative to prepandemic, utilization decreased during the early pandemic (62 panels monthly/facility; sd 112) but returned to the prepandemic baseline by the late pandemic (107 panels monthly/facility; sd 211). Relative to prepandemic, late pandemic testing involved more small panel use (58 monthly/facility, sd 156) and less large panel use (47 monthly/facility, sd 116). Comparisons among periods demonstrated significant differences in overall testing (
conclusionsPostpandemic, clinical use of respiratory panel testing shifted from predominantly large panels to predominantly small panels. Factors driving this change may include resource availability, costs, and the clinical utility of targeting important pathogenic viruses instead of testing "for everything."
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.