In reply: Katelaris and colleagues raise concerns that uncontrolled before‐and‐after studies are vulnerable to bias and that other factors (eg, the severity of influenza) may have confounded our findings.1 I agree that uncontrolled before‐and‐after studies, being observational studies, are generally prone to different types of bias and that other residual (unmeasured) factors may have confounded our study outcomes.2
The full article is accessible to AMA
members and paid subscribers.
Login to MJA or subscribe now.
- 1. Wabe N, Li L, Lindeman R, et al. The impact of rapid molecular diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses on outcomes for emergency department patients. Med J Aust 2019; 210: 316–320. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2019/210/7/impact-rapid-molecular-diagnostic-testing-respiratory-viruses-outcomes-emergency
- 2. Boyko EJ. Observational research — opportunities and limitations. J Diabetes Complications 2013; 27: 642–648.
- 3. Rappo U, Schuetz AN, Jenkins SG, et al. Impact of early detection of respiratory viruses by multiplex pcr assay on clinical outcomes in adult patients. J Clin Microbiol 2016; 54: 2096–2103.
- 4. Rogers BB, Shankar P, Jerris RC, et al. Impact of a rapid respiratory panel test on patient outcomes. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015; 139: 636–641.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.
No relevant disclosures.