Rapid PCR flu test, page-4

I read the MJA paper and its doesn't name the brands of the standard PCR multiplex tests it is referring to (or the hospitals studied). It gives an example of the 'rapid' tests it is using as Cepheid GeneXpert. This test has one of the fastest turnaround times and also has the advantage of being less dependent on specialised staff, but it is more expensive than standard tests and requires specialised equipment. It is not designed for high throughput, which is why they are using it in ED's only. Also for hospitals which do not have a good laboratory onsite, because hospitals with a good lab (which is most major hospitals) come close to matching the turnaround of a Cepheid test with a 'standard' test.
To cut a long story short, the GSS flu test is probably more similar to the 'standard' test mentioned in the paper, but it has advantages of its own that it certain situations makes it superior to a Cepheid rapid test. The MJA paper indeed acknowledges that 'standard' tests have advantages over rapid ones, such as testing for viruses beside flu.
The market for molecular diagnostics is huge and growing, making for good 'headwinds. There is no question it is competitive, but this is not always a bad thing and different healthcare settings have different needs. The distinguishing feature of the GSS PCR test is the 3 base technology and I am encouraged by the fact it is doing well already in a competitive market. The 3-base method means it can potentially detect virus/bacteria that other PCR tests can't.