Search Results

The QuickVue Influenza A/B Test is intended for the rapid, qualitative detection of influenza Types A and B antigen directly from nasal swab, nasal wash and/or nasal aspirate specimens. The test is intended for use as an aid in the rapid diagnosis of acute influenza virus infection. The test is intended for professional and laboratory use.

The QuickVue Influenza A/B Test is a lateral-flow immunoassay using highly sensitive moroclonal antibodies that are specific for influenza antigens. The test is specific to influenza Types A and B antigen with no know cross-reactivity to normal flora or other known respiratory pathogens.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study information for the QuickVue Influenza A/B Test based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria values (e.g., "sensitivity must be >90%"). Instead, it describes demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to viral culture. The reported performance is based on exceeding a general benchmark of agreement for laboratory personnel.

Study Details

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Test Set Sample Size: Two distinct studies are mentioned:
     • A "multi-clinical field study" for substantial equivalence to viral culture. The exact number of clinical specimens or patients is not provided.
     • "Physician's Office Laboratory studies" conducted at three geographically distinct sites in the United States. The exact number of tests performed or samples used in these POL studies is not provided.
   • Data Provenance:
     • Clinical specimens obtained from patients symptomatic for upper respiratory infection.
     • POL studies were conducted in the United States at three geographically distinct sites.
     • Both studies appear to be prospective, as they compare the QuickVue test to viral culture or assess user performance in real-time settings.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • The primary ground truth for the clinical performance study was viral culture. The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts interpreting the viral culture results. Viral culture itself is considered a gold standard in this context, and interpretation is typically handled by trained laboratory personnel or virologists, though this is not explicitly stated.
   • For the POL studies, "expected results" were used, implying a reference standard, but the origin or expert involvement in establishing these "expected results" is not detailed.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for resolving discrepancies between the QuickVue test and the reference standard (viral culture). It simply states a "comparison" was conducted.

4. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

   • No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed. This device is a rapid diagnostic test (lateral-flow immunoassay), not an AI-based diagnostic requiring human reader assistance. The "user performance" study focused on the ability of doctors' office personnel to perform the test accurately, not on their improvement with technological assistance.

5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

   • Yes, the QuickVue Influenza A/B Test operates as a standalone device. Its performance is evaluated intrinsically through comparison to a reference standard (viral culture) for antigen detection. There is no "human-in-the-loop" component in the sense of a software algorithm assisting a human interpreter; the human conducts and reads the test directly.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

   • For the clinical performance study, the primary ground truth was viral culture. This is a laboratory-based diagnostic method considered a gold standard for influenza detection.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not provide details on a separate "training set" or its sample size. For an immunoassay like this, the development typically involves extensive assay optimization and validation during R&D using various characterized samples, rather than a distinct "training set" in the machine learning sense. The clinical studies described are for validation of the final product.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • As no explicit "training set" is described in the provided text for this immunoassay, how its ground truth was established is not detailed. However, for immunoassay development, ground truth for optimization would typically come from well-characterized clinical samples (e.g., confirmed positive/negative by PCR or viral culture) or spiked samples with known amounts of antigen.

Ask a specific question about this device