ArticleBMC microbiology2017
Evaluation of the line probe assay for the rapid detection of bacterial meningitis pathogens in cerebrospinal fluid samples from children.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic performance of the line probe assay (LPA) with conventional multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Streptococcus pneumoniae as well as real-time PCR for Neisseria meningitidis and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from children during the multicenter national surveillance of bacterial meningitis between the years 2006 and 2009 in Turkey.
resultsDuring the study period 1460 subjects were enrolled and among them 841 (57%) met the criteria for probable bacterial meningitis. The mean age of subjects was 51 ± 47 months (range, 1-212 months). We performed the line probe assay in 751 (89%) CSF samples of 841 probable bacterial meningitis cases, of whom 431 (57%) were negative, 127 (17%) were positive for S. pneumoniae, 53 (7%) were positive for H. influenzae type b, and 41 (5%) were positive for N. meningitidis. The LPA was positive in 19 of 23 (82%) S. pneumoniae samples, 4 of 6 (67%) N. meningitidis samples and 2 of 2 (100%) Hib samples in CSF culture-positive cases. The specificity of the LPA for all of S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae type b, and N. meningitidis was 88% (95% CI: 85-91%), when using the standard PCR as a reference. The specificity of LPA for each of S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae type b, and N. meningitidis was 93% (95% CI: 89-95%), 96% (95% CI: 94-98%), and 99% (95% CI: 97-99%), respectively. For all of S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae type b and N. meningitidis the sensitivity of the LPA was 76% (95% CI: 70-82%) and for each of S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae type b and N. meningitidis was 72% (95% CI:63-79%), 88% (95% CI: 73-95%), and 81% (95% CI:67-92%), respectively.
conclusionsThe LPA assay can be used to detect common bacterial meningitis pathogens in CSF samples, but the assay requires further improvement.
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.