TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you're given a paragraph and title from the research paper. Your task is to classify whether the given title is suitable or not for the research paper based on the given paragraph. Return "True" if title is proper according to paragraph else "False".
PROBLEM: Paragraph: Editor: M. Leeflang Multiplex PCR Point-of-care test Respiratory virus infection a b s t r a c t Objectives: To provide a summary of evidence for the diagnostic accuracies of three multiplex PCR systems (mPCRs)dBioFire FilmArray RP (FilmArray), Nanosphere Verigene RVþ test (Verigene RVþ) and Hologic Gen-Probe Prodesse assaysdon the detection of viral respiratory infections. Methods: A comprehensive search up to 1 July 2017 was conducted on Medline and Embase for studies that utilized FilmArray, Verigene RVþ and Prodesse for diagnosis of viral respiratory infections. A summary of diagnostic accuracies for the following five viruses were calculated: influenza A virus (FluA), influenza B virus, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus and adenovirus. Hierarchical summary receiver operating curves were used for estimating the viral detection performance per assay. Results: Twenty studies of 5510 patient samples were eligible for analysis. Multiplex PCRs demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) equal to or more than 0.98 for all the above viruses except for adenovirus (AUROC 0.89). FilmArray, Verigene RVþ and ProFluþ (the only Prodesse assay with enough data) demonstrated a summary sensitivity for FluA of 0.911 (95% confidence interval, 0.848e0.949), 0.949 (95% confidence interval, 0.882e0.979) and 0.954 (95% confidence interval, 0.871e0.985), respectively. The three mPCRs were comparable in terms of detection of FluA. Conclusions: Point estimates calculated from eligible studies showed that the three mPCRs (FilmArray, Verigene RVþ and ProFluþ) are highly accurate and may provide important diagnostic information for early identification of respiratory virus infections. In patients with low pretest probability for FluA, these three mPCRs can predict a low possibility of infection and may justify withholding empirical antiviral treatments. H.-S. Huang, Clin Microbiol Infect 2018;24:1055 
 Title: Systematic review Multiplex PCR system for the rapid diagnosis of respiratory virus infection: systematic review and meta-analysis

SOLUTION: False

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Background: Wild birds are an important but to some extent under-studied reservoir for emerging pathogens. We used unbiased sequencing methods for virus discovery in shorebird samples from the Delaware Bay, USA; an important feeding ground for thousands of migratory birds. Findings: Analysis of shorebird fecal samples indicated the presence of a novel astrovirus and coronavirus. A sanderling sample yielded sequences with distant homology to avian nephritis virus 1, an astrovirus associated with acute nephritis in poultry. A ruddy turnstone sample yielded sequences with homology to deltacoronaviruses. Conclusions: Our findings highlight shorebirds as a virus reservoir and the need to closely monitor wild bird populations for the emergence of novel virus variants. 
 Title: Novel Coronavirus and Astrovirus in Delaware Bay Shorebirds

SOLUTION: False

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Health care workers are exposed to potentially infectious airborne particles while providing routine care to coughing patients. However, much is not understood about the behavior of these aerosols and the risks they pose. We used a coughing patient simulator and a breathing worker simulator to investigate the exposure of health care workers to cough aerosol droplets, and to examine the efficacy of face shields in reducing this exposure. Our results showed that 0.9% of the initial burst of aerosol from a cough can be inhaled by a worker 46 cm (18 inches) from the patient. During testing of an influenza-laden cough aerosol with a volume median diameter (VMD) of 8.5 μm, wearing a face shield reduced the inhalational exposure of the worker by 96% in the period immediately after a cough. The face shield also reduced the surface contamination of a respirator by 97%. When a smaller cough aerosol was used (VMD = 3.4 μm), the face shield was less effective, blocking only 68% of the cough and 76% of the surface contamination. In the period from 1 to 30 minutes after a cough, during which the aerosol had dispersed throughout the room and larger particles had settled, the face shield reduced aerosol inhalation by only 23%. Increasing the distance between the patient and worker to 183 cm (72 inches) reduced the exposure to influenza that occurred immediately after a cough by 92%. Our results show that health care workers can inhale infectious airborne particles while treating a coughing patient. Face shields can substantially reduce the short-term exposure of health care workers to large infectious aerosol particles, but smaller particles can remain airborne longer and flow around the face shield more easily to be inhaled. Thus, face shields provide a useful adjunct to respiratory protection for workers caring for patients with respiratory infections. However, they cannot be used as a substitute for respiratory protection when it is needed. 
 Title: Efficacy of Face Shields Against Cough Aerosol Droplets from a Cough Simulator

SOLUTION:
False