We 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.

中文翻译：

---

流感、呼吸道合胞病毒和其他呼吸道病毒的快速分子检测：诊断准确性和临床影响研究的系统评价。

我们系统地回顾了来自 Embase、Medline 和 Cochrane 图书馆的现有证据，了解与传统分子检测相比，市售的呼吸道病毒快速（结果 <3 小时）分子诊断的诊断准确性和临床影响。纳入研究的质量分别使用诊断测试准确性（DTA）研究的诊断准确性研究质量评估标准以及随机和观察影响研究的Cochrane偏倚风险评估和非随机干预研究中的偏倚风险标准进行评估。对 63 份 DTA 报告（56 项研究）进行了荟萃分析，汇总敏感性为 90.9%（95% 置信区间 [CI]，88.7%-93.1%），特异性为 96.1%（95% CI，94.2%-97.9%） ) 用于检测流感病毒 (n = 29)、呼吸道合胞病毒 (RSV) (n = 1)、流感病毒和 RSV (n = 19) 或包括流感病毒和 RSV 的病毒组 (n = 14) 。纳入的 15 项影响研究（其中 5 项是随机的）差异很大，因此结果尚无定论。然而，我们建议应考虑在医院护理机构中实施快速诊断。