ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2016
Comparison of the BD MAX® Enteric Bacterial Panel assay with conventional diagnostic procedures in diarrheal stool samples.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- Acute infectious gastroenteritis in childhood: the role of rapid multiplex molecular syndromic panels in diagnosis and clinical management.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025Review
- Evaluation of a rapid fluorescence immunoassay for detecting Campylobacter antigens in stool samples.Gut pathogens · 2025Article
- Evaluation of non-invasive diagnostic tools for diarrhea: a systematic review of point-of-care tests and biomarkers.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
- Development of a Rapid and Fully Automated Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assay for Identification and Differentiation ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
- Lack of sensitivity of an IVD/CE-labelled kit targeting the S gene for detection of SARS-CoV-2.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2020Article
- Performance Evaluation of the Novodiag Bacterial GE+ Multiplex PCR Assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- An Overview of the Molecular Methods in the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Infectious Diseases.International journal of microbiology · 2020Review
- Rapid culture-based identification of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and Shigella spp./Enteroinvasive E. coli using the eazyplex® EHEC complete assay.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020Article
- The Utility of Multiplex Molecular Tests for Enteric Pathogens: a Micro-Comic Strip.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Molecular detection of common intestinal parasites: a performance evaluation of the BD Max™ Enteric Parasite Panel.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2016Article
- Using Multiplex Molecular Testing to Determine the Etiology of Acute Gastroenteritis in Children.The Journal of pediatrics · 2016Article
- Application of Alternative Nucleic Acid Extraction Protocols to ProGastro SSCS Assay for Detection of Bacterial Enteric Pathogens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although infectious diarrhea is one of the most predominant diseases around the world, the identification of the causative microorganism is still challenging. The aim of this study was the evaluation of the BD MAX® Enteric Bacterial Panel assay in comparison to conventional diagnostic procedures concerning the detection of the enteric pathogens Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., Shigella spp., and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli. For this purpose, 971 prospectively collected stool samples were evaluated. Utilization of the BD MAX Enteric Bacterial Panel elevated the overall detection rate from 5.26 % to 8.06 %. The positive percent agreement of the BD MAX Enteric Bacterial Panel assay and stool culture or enzyme immunoassay was 0.97 for Campylobacter spp., 0.75 for Salmonella spp., 1.00 for Shigella spp., and 0.88 for Shiga toxins. Furthermore, a negative percent agreement of 0.98 for Campylobacter spp., 0.99 for Salmonella spp., 0.99 for Shigella spp., and 0.99 for Shiga toxins has been demonstrated. This study highlighted the superior detection rate of molecular assays compared to conventional diagnostic procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26563899What 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.