SynthesisPloS one2017
Agreement between gastrointestinal panel testing and standard microbiology methods for detecting pathogens in suspected infectious gastroenteritis: Test evaluation and meta-analysis in the absence of a reference standard.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.Epidemiology and infection · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of multiplex nucleic acid amplification tests forPathogens and global health · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Molecular detection of pathogens associated with childhood gastroenteritis in Burkina Faso using the FilmArrayBMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Bacteremic vs NonbacteremicOpen forum infectious diseases · 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
- Clinical performance evaluation of TAQPATH Enteric Bacterial Select Panel for the detection of common enteric bacterial pathogens in comparison to routine stool culture and other qPCR-based diagnostic tests.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Successful management of life-threatening post-COVID-19 cryptosporidiosis in a renal transplant patient: a case report.The Pan African medical journal · 2023Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Luminex xTAGMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- [Usefulness of Stool Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays in Patients with Acute Diarrhea].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2022Article
- Rapid molecular syndromic testing for aetiological diagnosis of gastrointestinal infections and targeted antimicrobial prescription: experience from a reference paediatric hospital in Spain.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Use of BioFire FilmArray gastrointestinal PCR panel associated with reductions in antibiotic use, time to optimal antibiotics, and length of stay.BMC gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Enteric Bacterial Culture and a Molecular Multiplex Syndromic Panel in Children with Acute Gastroenteritis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Impact of Gastrointestinal Panel Implementation on Health Care Utilization and Outcomes.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Comparison of Multiplex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel and Conventional Stool Testing for Evaluation of Diarrhea in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the Vibrant DNA microarray for the high-throughput multiplex detection of enteric pathogens in clinical samples.Gut pathogens · 2019Article
- Case Report: Diagnosis of Cryptosporidiosis in Renal Transplantation in a Low-Prevalence Setting.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2019Article
- Detection of common diarrhea-causing pathogens in Northern Taiwan by multiplex polymerase chain reaction.Medicine · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMultiplex gastrointestinal pathogen panel (GPP) tests simultaneously identify bacterial, viral and parasitic pathogens from the stool samples of patients with suspected infectious gastroenteritis presenting in hospital or the community. We undertook a systematic review to compare the accuracy of GPP tests with standard microbiology techniques. REVIEW
methodsSearches in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were undertaken from inception to January 2016. Eligible studies compared GPP tests with standard microbiology techniques in patients with suspected gastroenteritis. Quality assessment of included studies used tailored QUADAS-2. In the absence of a reference standard we analysed test performance taking GPP tests and standard microbiology techniques in turn as the benchmark test, using random effects meta-analysis of proportions.
resultsNo study provided an adequate reference standard with which to compare the test accuracy of GPP and conventional tests. Ten studies informed a meta-analysis of positive and negative agreement. Positive agreement across all pathogens was 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.96) when conventional methods were the benchmark and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.58 to 0.77) when GPP provided the benchmark. Negative agreement was high in both instances due to the high proportion of negative cases. GPP testing produced a greater number of pathogen-positive findings than conventional testing. It is unclear whether these additional 'positives' are clinically important.
conclusionsGPP testing has the potential to simplify testing and accelerate reporting when compared to conventional microbiology methods. However the impact of GPP testing upon the management, treatment and outcome of patients is poorly understood and further studies are needed to evaluate the health economic impact of GPP testing compared with standard methods. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO as CRD42016033320.
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.