Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27259710›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2016

Detection of Shiga toxin-producing and other diarrheagenic Escherichia coli by the BioFire FilmArray® Gastrointestinal Panel in human fecal samples.

K De Rauw, L Detemmerman, J Breynaert, D Piérard

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

K De RauwDepartment of Microbiology, National Reference Centre for STEC/VTEC, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090, Brussels, Belgium. klara.derauw@uzbrussel.be.
L DetemmermanDepartment of Microbiology, National Reference Centre for STEC/VTEC, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090, Brussels, Belgium.
J BreynaertDepartment of Microbiology, National Reference Centre for STEC/VTEC, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090, Brussels, Belgium.
D PiérardDepartment of Microbiology, National Reference Centre for STEC/VTEC, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was the evaluation of the performance of the BioFire FilmArray® Gastrointestinal (FA-GI) Panel, a multiplexed molecular stool screening assay, for the detection of diarrheagenic Escherichia coli (DEC), with emphasis on Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC). A dilution series of 12 STEC reference strains was tested with the FA-GI Panel to assess the analytical sensitivity. A total of 389 patient samples were analyzed with the FA-GI Panel and confirmation of the detected DEC was attempted with an in-house culture-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. All Shiga toxin genes, except the one encoding Stx2f, were detected in bacterial dilutions ranging from 10(4) to 10(2) colony-forming units (CFU)/ml. eae + stx2f + STEC was misclassified as enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC). Different sensitivities for various gene targets present in one isolate led to differing identifications depending on the concentration. Using the in-house method as a reference, the FA-GI Panel had a sensitivity of 90.6 % [confidence interval (CI) 75.0 %-98.0 %] and a specificity of 97.2 % (CI 94.9 %-98.6 %) for STEC detection in feces. At least one DEC was reported in 35.5 % (171/389) of the patient specimens, with EPEC being the most prevalent (n = 71). Only 59.7 % of the detected DEC could be confirmed, presumably because the comparator method was not applied directly on feces. The FA-GI Panel could not detect the stx2f subtype, misclassified certain pathogens, and the high detection rate of EPEC needs further investigation. Nevertheless, we believe that this sensitive and convenient system will prove to be an invaluable tool for the rapid diagnosis of most DEC infections, but culturing of the detected microorganisms should always be attempted.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBacteriological TechniquesChildChild, PreschoolDiarrheaEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsFecesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleShiga Toxin

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.