ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Comparative evaluation of two commercial multiplex panels for detection of gastrointestinal pathogens by use of clinical stool specimens.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 145 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
145 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 301 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of point-of-need molecular diagnostics for rotavirus and enteric adenoviruses F40/F41.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Multiplex NAAT/PCR and Culture AgainstPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of multiplex nucleic acid amplification tests forPathogens and global health · 2023Pooled it
- Accuracy and comparison of two rapid multiplex PCR tests for gastroenteritis pathogens: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical Impact of Multiplex Molecular Diagnostic Testing in Children With Acute Gastroenteritis Presenting to an Emergency Department: A Multicenter Prospective Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Trial
- Prevalence and diversity of enteric pathogens among cholera treatment centre patients with acute diarrhea in Uvira, Democratic Republic of Congo.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Trial
- Evaluation of false positive enteric viruses results from the BIOFIRE® FILMARRAY® gastrointestinal PCR panel.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2026Article
- Multicentre Evaluation of Cepheid XpertMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Chronic exposure to intestinal parasites and bacterial enteropathogens among children in rural Madagascar: Implications for asymptomatic carriage and co-infections.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- QIAstat-Dx Syndromic Molecular Testing Versus Conventional Diagnostics in Acute Gastroenteritis: Impact on Pathogen Detection and Laboratory Workflow.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Development of Multiplex Real-Time Quantitative PCR for the Detection ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Mapping the Literature on the Impact of Gastrointestinal Multiplexed Pathogen Panels on Clinical and Healthcare Utilization Outcomes: A Scoping Review.The journal of applied laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Syndromic Diagnostics for Travelers' Diarrhea: Near-Patient Field-Expedient Testing in Resource-Limited Settings.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Gastrointestinal pathogens detected by a multiplex PCR panel in a tertiary care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (2023-2024).Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- PCR-Based Versus Conventional Stool Testing in Hospitalized Patients with Diarrhea: Diagnostic Yield, Clinical Impact, and Stewardship Implications.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Panels for Gastrointestinal Infections: Current Evidence, Regulatory Hurdles, and the Way Forward.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Review
- Multicenter evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx Gastrointestinal Panel 2, a multiplex PCR platform for the diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Multicenter Analysis of the Attributable Diarrhea Risk and Odds Ratios of Pathogens in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta) Using Multiplex PCR Gastrointestinal Panel Testing and Conventional Fecal Culture.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025Article
- A novel comparative evaluation of multiplex PCR panels for gastrointestinal pathogen detection: Seegene Allplex™ vs. Luminex NxTAGEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Article
85 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The detection of pathogens associated with gastrointestinal disease may be important in certain patient populations, such as immunocompromised hosts, the critically ill, or individuals with prolonged disease that is refractory to treatment. In this study, we evaluated two commercially available multiplex panels (the FilmArray gastrointestinal [GI] panel [BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT] and the Luminex xTag gastrointestinal pathogen panel [GPP] [Luminex Corporation, Toronto, Canada]) using Cary-Blair stool samples (n = 500) submitted to our laboratory for routine GI testing (e.g., culture, antigen testing, microscopy, and individual real-time PCR). At the time of this study, the prototype (non-FDA-cleared) FilmArray GI panel targeted 23 pathogens (14 bacterial, 5 viral, and 4 parasitic), and testing of 200 μl of Cary-Blair stool was recommended. In contrast, the Luminex GPP assay was FDA cleared for the detection of 11 pathogens (7 bacterial, 2 viral, and 2 parasitic), but had the capacity to identify 4 additional pathogens using a research-use-only protocol. Importantly, the Luminex assay was FDA cleared for 100 μl raw stool; however, 100 μl Cary-Blair stool was tested by the Luminex assay in this study. Among 230 prospectively collected samples, routine testing was positive for one or more GI pathogens in 19 (8.3%) samples, compared to 76 (33.0%) by the FilmArray and 69 (30.3%) by the Luminex assay. Clostridium difficile (12.6 to 13.9% prevalence) and norovirus genogroup I (GI)/GII (5.7 to 13.9% prevalence) were two of the pathogens most commonly detected by both assays among prospective samples. Sapovirus was also commonly detected (5.7% positive rate) by the FilmArray assay. Among 270 additional previously characterized samples, both multiplex panels demonstrated high sensitivity (>90%) for the majority of targets, with the exception of several pathogens, notably Aeromonas sp. (23.8%) by FilmArray and Yersinia enterocolitica (48.1%) by the Luminex assay. Interestingly, the FilmArray and Luminex panels identified mixed infections in 21.1% and 13.0% of positive prospective samples, respectively, compared to only 8.3% by routine methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.