ABSTRACT
Objectives
Rapid multiplex point‐of‐care (POC) PCR tests may reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing by quickly identifying viral etiologies in patients with acute respiratory infections (ARI). We evaluated the impact of a rapid (~15 min) multiplex PCR test on antibiotic prescribing, provider confidence, patient satisfaction, and emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS).
Methods
We conducted a prospective, single‐center study (March 2024–January 2025) enrolling adults presenting to an urban academic ED with ARI symptoms. Participants underwent rapid multiplex PCR testing (BIOFIRE SPOTFIRE Respiratory Panel), with results provided to clinicians in real time. Antibiotic prescribing, provider and patient perceptions, and ED LOS were assessed through surveys and electronic health record review. A propensity‐matched control cohort was used to compare antibiotic prescribing and LOS. The primary outcome was antibiotic prescribing among patients with a confirmed viral etiology; secondary outcomes included overall antibiotic prescribing, ED LOS, and provider‐and patient‐reported measures.
Results
A total of 200 patients were enrolled (mean age 43 years; 56.5% female). Common presenting symptoms included cough (80%), congestion (65%), and sore throat (55%). Patients with confirmed viral infections were significantly less likely to receive antibiotics than those with no detected pathogen (6.5% vs. 20.2%; OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.10–0.68; p = 0.009). Overall antibiotic prescribing rates were similar between experimental and control cohorts (14.9% vs. 12.0%; p = 0.392), but median ED LOS was significantly shorter in the experimental group (4.3 vs. 6.5 h; OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.59–0.74; p < 0.001). Provider diagnostic confidence was high (76%), and most patients reported high satisfaction with testing (92%).
Conclusions
Rapid multiplex PCR testing was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing for viral infections, shorter ED LOS, high provider confidence, and high patient satisfaction. These findings support the value of ultra‐rapid diagnostics for antimicrobial stewardship and patient‐centered care in the ED.
1. Introduction
Acute respiratory illness (ARI) is among the most frequent reasons for emergency department (ED) visits, accounting for nearly six million ED encounters annually in the U.S. [1]. Despite its prevalence, accurately distinguishing viral from bacterial etiologies using clinical signs alone is challenging. Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing occurs in over 30% of ARI cases where antibiotics are not indicated, contributing significantly to antibiotic resistance, healthcare costs, and adverse patient outcomes [2, 3, 4]. Rapid diagnostic tools like multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests offer clinicians timely identification of pathogens, potentially reducing unnecessary antibiotic use [5, 6]. It is unknown if multiplex PCR testing in acute care settings reduces inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions, decreases ED length of stay (LOS), and promotes targeted antiviral use. Prior studies have been limited by prolonged result turnaround times (> 1 h to days), the lack of real‐time communication of results to clinicians, and ill‐defined integration into clinical workflows [7, 8]. A multiplex diagnostic test that is conducted at the point‐of‐care (POC) and delivers results rapidly may address these limitations by providing actionable results in the clinical decision‐making window. This study investigates the effectiveness of a rapid (approximately 15‐min turnaround) multiplex PCR diagnostic tool in ED patients with suspected ARI. The primary outcome was antibiotic prescribing among patients with a definitive viral pathogen. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic prescribing rates in cases with no pathogen detected, ED LOS, and both provider and patient‐reported confidence and satisfaction measures.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design and Setting
We conducted a prospective, single‐center observational study from March 2024 through January 2025 at an urban academic ED with an annual census of approximately 65,000 visits and conducted in accordance with STROBE guidelines. The study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
2.2. Participants
Adults (≥ 18 years) presenting to the ED with symptoms suggestive of ARI (e.g., cough, nasal congestion, sore throat, headache, myalgias, dyspnea, or fever) were prospectively screened by trained research staff. Patients were eligible if symptoms had been present for fewer than 14 days and the treating clinician suspected an acute respiratory infection. Exclusion criteria included:
Need for immediate advanced intervention (oxygen saturation < 95%, hemodynamic instability, altered mental status);
Hospitalization within the prior 30 days;
Non–English‐speaking status;
Prisoner status;
Inability to provide informed consent;
Clinical suspicion for serious bacterial infection (e.g., lobar pneumonia, meningitis, pyelonephritis, or recent C. difficile infection).
Patients who received antibiotics prior to the availability of multiplex PCR results were excluded from analyses of antibiotic prescribing.
2.3. Intervention
Enrolled participants underwent rapid multiplex PCR testing using the BIOFIRE SPOTFIRE Respiratory Panel, which detects common viral and bacterial pathogens including influenza A/B, RSV, SARS‐CoV‐2, adneovirus, parainfluenza, rhinovirus/enterovirus, human metapneumovirus, and common coronaviruses. Results were available in approximately 15 min which is faster that typical mPCR panels and were provided to treating clinicians in real‐time to inform clinical decision‐making. Assays were performed in the ED by research staff. Based on prior validation studies, the overall performance of the multiplex assay is 98.5% for the per‐target positive percentage agreement (PPA) and 99.1% for negative percentage agreement (NPA). (BIOFIRE® SPOTFIRE Respiratory/Sore Throat (R/ST) Panel [package onsert] Salt Lake City, UT; bioMerieux Inc. 2024.)
2.4. Data Collection
Demographics, presenting symptoms, comorbidities, and ED disposition were extracted from the electronic health record. Antibiotic prescribing decisions, ED LOS, and disposition were recorded. Provider confidence and patient satisfaction were assessed using structured surveys administered after receipt of PCR results.
2.5. Control Group
To enable comparison of antibiotic prescribing and ED LOS, a retrospective propensity‐matched control cohort was constructed from a previous ARI observational study conducted at the same ED between 11/2021 and 9/2024. One‐to‐one propensity score matching was performed using the following variables: age, sex, admission status, race, ethnicity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, chest X‐ray order, CBC order, oxygen saturation category (< 95% or ≥ 95%), and heart rate category (≤ 100 bpm or > 100 bpm). We chose chest X‐ray order rather than result to balance diagnostic intensity while avoiding subjective interpretation variability. Matching ensured comparability between study cohorts for robust comparison (Supplementary Table S1).
2.6. Outcomes
The primary outcome was antibiotic prescribing among patients with a confirmed viral etiology. Secondary outcomes included overall antibiotic prescribing, ED LOS, provider confidence, and patient satisfaction. Provider confidence was measured using a 5‐point Likert scale. Patient satisfaction was measured using a 5‐point Likert scale plus net promotor score.
2.7. Chart Review Procedures
For patients prescribed antibiotics despite a positive viral multiplex PCR result, a structured chart review was performed by two independent study investigators to determine clinical rationale. Disagreements or uncertainties were resolved through consensus. Relevant documentation including provider notes, radiologic findings, and the presence of comorbidities or alternative infection sources (e.g., pneumonia, otitis media, cellulitis, urinary tract infection) was reviewed. Bacterial pneumonia was defined by treating clinician judgment, supported radiographic findings. We did not systematically exclude the possibility of viral‐bacterial co‐infection.
2.8. Statistical Methods
The primary analysis tested whether antibiotic prescribing differed between patients with a positive viral diagnosis and those with no pathogen detected, using logistic regression. Patients testing positive for bacterial pathogens were excluded from this primary analysis as antibiotic use was anticipated in these cases. Secondary analyses included comparison of overall antibiotic prescribing rates and ED LOS between experimental and matched control groups. Logistic regression was used for antibiotic prescribing (binary outcome), and linear regression (log‐transformed) was employed for ED LOS given the skewed distribution. Parameter estimates were reported as odds ratios (OR) for logistic regression models and rate ratios for linear regression models, with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed using the R statistical environment, with significance assessed at an alpha of 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Study Population
From March 2024 to January 2025, 200 patients with ARI symptoms were enrolled. The mean age was 43.1 years (SD 17.5), 57% were female, and 75% identified as Black or African American. Common symptoms included cough (80%), congestion (65%), and sore throat (55%). Hypertension (32%) and diabetes (12%) were the most frequent comorbidities. Most participants had received COVID‐19 vaccination (87%) and just over half reported influenza vaccination (55%) (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Summary of baseline characteristics of study cohort (N = 200).
| Variable | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Age, Mean (SD) | 43.1 (17.5) |
| Female | 113 (56.5%) |
| Black or African American | 150 (75.0%) |
| White | 31 (15.5%) |
| Asian | 8 (4.0%) |
| Other, unknown, or unreported | 11 (5.5%) |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 186 (93.0%) |
| Hispanic or Latino | 9 (4.5%) |
| Unknown or unreported | 5 (2.5%) |
| Hypertension | 64 (32.0%) |
| Diabetes | 23 (11.5%) |
| Heart disease | 12 (6.0%) |
| Chest X‐ray, performed in the ED | 95 (47.5%) |
| Complete blood count (CBC), performed in the ED | 55 (27.5%) |
| pAO2 (Mean [SD]) | 99.0 [93.0, 100] |
| HR (Mean [SD]) | 88.5 (15.8) |
| Discharged home | 192 (96.0%) |
| Admitted to hospital | 8 (4.0%) |
| Presenting complaints | |
| Cough | 159 (79.9%) |
| Runny or stuffy nose | 129 (64.8%) |
| Sore throat | 110 (55.3%) |
| Headaches | 105 (52.8%) |
| Muscle aches | 101 (50.8%) |
| Sneezing | 85 (42.7%) |
| Trouble breathing | 84 (42.2%) |
| Fever | 82 (41.2%) |
| Vaccinated for COVID‐19 Vaccination Status | 173 (86.9%) |
3.2. Pathogen Detection by Multiplex PCR
Multiplex PCR identified a viral pathogen in 92 patients (46%), most commonly influenza A (15%), rhinovirus/enterovirus (12%), and seasonal coronaviruses (8%). Bacterial pathogens were detected in four patients (2%), all appropriately treated with antibiotics. No pathogen was detected in 99 patients (50%).
3.3. Antibiotic Prescribing Patterns
Overall, 15% (29/195) of patients received antibiotics after PCR results were available. Antibiotics were prescribed less frequently in patients with viral infections compared to those with no pathogen detected (6.5% vs. 20.2%; OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10–0.68; p = 0.009) (Figure 1). The six viral‐positive patients who were prescribed antibiotics had clinical findings consistent with bacterial infection: three with radiographic findings suggestive of bacterial pneumonia, one with acute otitis media, one with advanced age and significant comorbidities, and one with urinary tract infection. The 20 “no pathogen identified” patients who received antibiotics had an alternative bacterial diagnosis that included Group A Streptococcus pharyngitis (n = 10), community‐acquired or atypical pneumonia (n = 5), urinary tract infection (n = 2), bacterial sinusitis (n = 2), and peritonsillar abscess (n = 1). Six patients were excluded from the primary analysis because antibiotics were administered prior to provider review of PCR results.
FIGURE 1.
Probability of antibiotics prescribed given from logistic models fitted as functions of viral diagnosis.
3.4. Provider and Patient‐Reported Outcomes
A total of 182 providers participated (48 attending physicians, 33 resident physicians, 101 PA/NPs). Among surveyed clinicians, 138 (76%) reported feeling “confident” or “extremely confident” in their diagnostic decision‐making after receiving PCR results. A total of 178 patients participated in satisfaction survey and 164 (92%) reported high satisfaction with the timeliness of results and 115 (65%) felt confident in their understanding of the diagnosis. Most patients indicated they would recommend both their provider (84%) and facility (87%).
3.5. Comparison With Control Cohort
After propensity matching, 194 experimental patients were compared to 200 controls. Antibiotic prescribing rates did not differ significantly (14.9% vs. 12.0%; OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.72–2.32; p = 0.392). However, ED length of stay was shorter in the experimental group (median 4.3 vs. 6.5 h; rate ratio 0.66; 95% CI 0.59–0.74; p < 0.001) (Table 2, Figure 2). No differences were observed in admission rates or use of chest imaging and laboratory testing.
TABLE 2.
Patient characteristics for Control and RADIATE cohorts following propensity matching a .
| Control (N = 200) | Experimental (N = 194) | |
|---|---|---|
| Antibiotics prescribed | 24 (12.0%) | 29 (14.9%) |
| Length of Stay (hours) | ||
| Mean (SD) | 8.6 (11.6) | 5.2 (3.86) |
| Median [Min, Max] | 6.5 [1.4, 153] | 4.3 [0.77, 38.0] |
Actual outcomes for propensity‐matched Control and Experimental cohorts. Note that six subjects from the experimental cohort were excluded from analysis after propensity‐matching because physicians prescribed antibiotics prior to seeing POC panel.
FIGURE 2.
Predicted probabilities of (a) antibiotics prescribed and (b) antibiotics given and (c) predicted length of stay in hours from logistic (a, b) and lognormal (c) models fitted to propensity‐matched cohorts. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
4. Discussion
In this prospective evaluation of point‐of‐care (POC) multiplex PCR testing for acute respiratory infections (ARI) in the emergency department (ED), rapid (~15‐min) diagnostic results were associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing among patients with confirmed viral infections, significantly shorter ED length of stay (LOS), and high provider and patient‐reported confidence and satisfaction. These findings highlight the clinical and operational value of integrating rapid molecular testing into ED workflows.
Previous studies evaluating multiplex PCR diagnostics for ARI have demonstrated mixed results regarding their impact on antibiotic prescribing and clinical outcomes. While several studies have shown that multiplex PCR diagnostics can reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing, others have demonstrated limited benefit due to delays in result reporting and inadequate integration into clinical workflows [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. A 2016 study by Rappo et al. showed that laboratory‐based multiplex PCR reduced antibiotic duration and hospital admission rates but was limited by delayed result reporting [9]. Similarly, studies utilizing rapid influenza PCR demonstrated reductions in antibiotic use and increased targeted antiviral therapy [5, 6]. Our study builds upon this evidence by specifically evaluating an ultra‐rapid (~15‐min) multiplex PCR assay integrated at the POC. By delivering results during active clinical decision‐making, we observed meaningful reductions in antibiotic prescribing among viral‐positive patients, shorter LOS, and high patient and provider confidence, suggesting real‐time result availability substantially enhances clinical impact.
Previous literature described how diagnostic uncertainty is a persistent challenge in ARI management, often prompting unnecessary antibiotic use due to concerns for bacterial co‐infection or missed diagnoses [2, 4, 8]. In the cases where antibiotics were prescribed, data consistently indicated additional clinical concerns, such as suspected bacterial pneumonia, otitis media, or significant patient comorbidities. Thus, antibiotic use was largely appropriate and clinically justified. Improving clinical education on interpreting multiplex PCR results and emphasizing clinical criteria for bacterial infection may further reduce antibiotic prescribing in pathogen negative cases.
Beyond traditional clinical outcomes, our study demonstrates meaningful provider‐ and patient‐reported benefits associated with rapid multiplex PCR. Providers reported high confidence in their diagnostic decision‐making after receiving rapid results, reflecting enhanced clinical certainty. Likewise, patients reported high satisfaction with the timely delivery of test results and improved understanding of their illness. Such patient‐centered outcomes are increasingly recognized as critical metrics of quality in healthcare delivery [13, 14, 15, 16]. Integration of rapid multiplex testing into routine ED workflows could thus serve as a strategic measure to enhance patient experience and diagnostic clarity in acute care settings. The significant reduction in ED LOS highlights how the rapid timing of result availability affects clinical practice [7, 8, 17, 18, 19]. By providing results rapidly at the bedside, our study allowed clinicians to expedite decision‐making, potentially streamlining departmental workflows, and patient throughput. These operational efficiencies could lead to downstream benefits, including reduced patient crowding and improved resource utilization.
This study benefits from prospective enrollment, standardized data collection, and use of a propensity‐matched control group. Integration of both clinical outcomes and patient‐ and provider‐reported measures strengthens external validity. Our findings should be interpreted in light of the controversy regarding use in community‐acquired pneumonia when a viral pathogen is identified. While ATS/IDSA guidelines acknowledge bacterial‐viral co‐infection, we lacked a criterion standard for differentiating pure viral vs. mixed infections. This underscores the need for further work integrating molecular diagnostics with clinical adjudication. Limitations include the single‐center academic setting, which may limit generalizability, and the absence of cost data, as patients were not billed for testing and the absence of long‐term follow‐up data. Antibiotic prescribing is inherently multifactorial, influenced by provider judgment, clinical presentation, and patient expectations. In addition, differences in ED length of stay should be interpreted cautiously, as they may reflect operational or temporal factors unrelated to testing. Finally, although matching reduced baseline imbalances, unmeasured confounding may have affected comparisons with the control cohort [20, 21].
By demonstrating meaningful reductions in antibiotic prescribing and ED LOS, along with high satisfaction and confidence, our findings support broader adoption of rapid multiplex PCR in acute care. Future multicenter studies should confirm these findings, evaluate cost‐effectiveness, and explore optimal strategies for workflow integration. Additional research should also assess decision‐support interventions to guide interpretation when no pathogen is identified.
Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Patients with positive bacterial diagnoses were excluded.
Author Contributions
A.C.M. and C.P. contributed to study conception, design, and data acquisition. S.M.L. provided statistical expertise. All authors contributed to data analysis, interpretation, and manuscript drafting.
Conflicts of Interest
Dr. Meltzer reports serving as a consultant for bioMérieux. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Supporting information
Table S1: Comparison of experimental and propensity matched cohort (control).
Meltzer A. C., Payette C., Heidish R., et al., “Point‐Of‐Care Respiratory Diagnosis and Antibiotic Utilization in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Evaluation of Multiplex PCR ,” Academic Emergency Medicine 33, no. 1 (2026): e70156, 10.1111/acem.70156.
Funding: This study was investigator‐initiated and received external funding from bioMérieux.
Supervising Editor: Kabir Yadav
Data Availability Statement
Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
References
- 1. Weiss A. J. and Jiang H. J., “STATISTICAL BRIEF #286,” (2021).
- 2. Costelloe C., Metcalfe C., Lovering A., Mant D., and Hay A. D., “Effect of Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care on Antimicrobial Resistance in Individual Patients: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” BMJ 340 (2010): c2096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Butler A. M., Brown D. S., Newland J. G., et al., “Comparative Safety and Attributable Healthcare Expenditures Following Inappropriate Versus Appropriate Outpatient Antibiotic Prescriptions Among Adults With Upper Respiratory Infections,” Clinical Infectious Diseases 76 (2022): 986–995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Hicks L. A., Chien Y., Taylor T. H., Haber M., and Klugman K. P., “Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing and Non Susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae in the United States, 1996'962003,” Clinical Infectious Diseases 53 (2025): 631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Echavarr e. M., Marcone D. N., Querci M., et al., “Clinical Impact of Rapid Molecular Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Patients With Acute Respiratory Infection,” Journal of Clinical Virology 108 (2018): 90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Wesolowski A., Miller J. L., Shields M., and Dela‐Pena J., “Antimicrobial Prescribing After Rapid Influenza PCR Implementation in the Emergency Department,” American Journal of Emergency Medicine 71, no. 123 (2023): 123–128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Brendish N. J., Malachira A. K., and Clark T. W., “Molecular Point‐Of‐Care Testing for Respiratory Viruses Versus Routine Clinical Care in Adults With Acute Respiratory Illness Presenting to Secondary Care: A Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial Protocol (ResPOC),” BMC Infectious Diseases 17 (2017): 17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Saarela E., Tapiainen T., Kauppila J., et al., “Impact of Multiplex Respiratory Virus Testing on Antimicrobial Consumption in Adults in Acute Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” Clinical Microbiology and Infection 26 (2019): 506. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Rappo U., Schuetz A. N., Jenkins S. G., et al., “Impact of Early Detection of Respiratory Viruses by Multiplex PCR Assay on Clinical Outcomes in Adult Patients,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology 54 (2016): 2096–2103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Shengchen D., Gu X., Fan G., et al., “Evaluation of Molecular Point‐Of‐Care Testing for Viral and Atypical Pathogens on Intravenous Antibiotic Duration in Hospitalized Adults With Lower Respiratory Tract Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” Clinical Microbiology and Infection 25 (2019): 1415–1421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Beard K. R., Borca F., Phan H., et al., “Routine, Molecular Point‐Of‐Care Testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 and Other Respiratory Viruses Within an Acute Oncology Service Improves Patient Care,” Journal of Infection 87 (2023): 516–523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Lissajoux A., Denis B., Gault E., et al., “Real‐Life Impact of Respiratory Panel PCR Assay on Antibiotic Prescription in Geriatric Acute Care in the Pre‐COVID‐19 Era,” Infectious Diseases Now 53 (2023): 104737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Lee V. S., Kawamoto K., Hess R., et al., “Implementation of a Value‐Driven Outcomes Program to Identify High Variability in Clinical Costs and Outcomes and Association With Reduced Cost and Improved Quality,” JAMA 316 (2016): 1061–1072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Nelson R. E., Stockmann C., and Hersh A. L., “Economic Analysis of Rapid and Sensitive Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing in the Emergency Department for Influenza Infections in Children,” Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 34 (2015): 577–582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Neubert A., Brito Fernandes Ó., Lucevic A., et al., “Understanding the Use of Patient‐Reported Data by Health Care Insurers: A Scoping Review,” PLoS One 15 (2020): e0244546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Schlesinger M., Grob R., and Shaller D., “Using Patient‐Reported Information to Improve Clinical Practice,” Health Services Research 50 (2015): 2116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Elrobaa I. H., Khan K., and Mohamed E., “The Role of Point‐Of‐Care Testing to Improve Acute Care and Health Care Services,” Cureus 16 (2024): e55315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Soto M., Sampietro‐Colom L., and Vilella A., “Economic Impact of a New Rapid PCR Assay for Detecting Influenza Virus in an Emergency Department and Hospitalized Patients,” PLoS One 11 (2016): e0146620. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Brendish N. J., Poole S., and Naidu V. V., “Clinical Impact of Molecular Point‐Of‐Care Testing for Suspected COVID‐19 in Hospital (COV‐19POC): A Prospective, Interventional, Nonrandomised, Controlled Study,” Lancet Respiratory Medicine 8 (2020): 30454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Gosert R., Koller R., and Meyer J., “Multicenter Evaluation of the QIAstat‐Dx and the BioFire Multiplex Panel Tests for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens,” Journal of Medical Virology 96 (2024): e70129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Popowitch E. B., O'Neill S. S., Miller M. B., et al., “Comparison of the BioFire FilmArray RP, GenMark eSensor RVP, Luminex xTAG RVPv1, and Luminex xTAG RVP Fast Multiplex Assays for Detection of Respiratory Viruses,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology 51 (2013): 1528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Table S1: Comparison of experimental and propensity matched cohort (control).
Data Availability Statement
Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.