Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28951981›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2018

Prospective evaluation of a high multiplexing real-time polymerase chain reaction array for the rapid identification and characterization of bacteria causative of nosocomial pneumonia from clinical specimens: a proof-of-concept study.

S Roisin, T-D Huang, R de Mendonça, C Nonhoff, P Bogaerts, M Hites, B Delaere, S Hamels, F de Longueville, Y Glupczynski and 1 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

S RoisinMicrobiology Laboratory, CUB-Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. Sandrine.Roisin@erasme.ulb.ac.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0911-092X
T-D HuangLaboratoire de Microbiologie, CHU Mont-Godinne, Université Catholique de Louvain, 5530, Yvoir, Belgium.
R de MendonçaMicrobiology Laboratory, CUB-Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
C NonhoffMicrobiology Laboratory, CUB-Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
P BogaertsLaboratoire de Microbiologie, CHU Mont-Godinne, Université Catholique de Louvain, 5530, Yvoir, Belgium.
M HitesDepartment of Infectious Diseases, CUB-Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
B DelaereDepartment of Infectious Diseases, CHU Mont-Godinne, Université Catholique de Louvain, 5530, Yvoir, Belgium.
S HamelsEppendorf Array Technologies, Namur, Belgium.
F de LonguevilleEppendorf Array Technologies, Namur, Belgium.
Y GlupczynskiLaboratoire de Microbiologie, CHU Mont-Godinne, Université Catholique de Louvain, 5530, Yvoir, Belgium.
O DenisMicrobiology Laboratory, CUB-Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Université Libre de Bruxelles · BEUCLouvain · BEEppendorf (Belgium) · BE

Funding

Région Wallonne of Belgium BioWin VAPChip convention 6214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was evaluation of the VAPChip assay based on the "Rapid-Array-PCR-technology" which targets 13 respiratory pathogens and 24 β-lactam resistance genes directly on respiratory clinical specimens. The first step included analysis of 45 respiratory specimens in order to calibrate and determine the threshold for target genes. The second prospective step involved 85 respiratory samples from patients suspected of nosocomial pneumonia collected in two academic hospitals over an 8-month period. Results of the VAPChip assay were compared to routine methods. The first step showed a large proportion of positive signals for H. influenzae and/or S. pneumoniae. For identification, discrepancies were observed in seven samples. Thresholds were adapted and two probes were re-designed to create a new version of the cartridge. In the second phase, sensitivity and specificity of the VAPchip for bacterial identification were 72.9% and 99.1%, respectively. Seventy (82%) pathogens were correctly identified by both methods. Nine pathogens detected by the VAPChip were culture negative and 26 pathogens identified by culture were VAPChip negative. For resistance mechanisms, 11 probes were positive without identification of pathogens with an antimicrobial-susceptibility testing compatible by culture. However, the patient's recent microbiological history was able to explain most of these positive signals. The VAPChip assay simultaneously detects different pathogens and resistance mechanisms directly from clinical samples. This system seems very promising but the extraction process needs to be automated for routine implementation. This kind of rapid point-of-care automated platform permitting a syndromic approach will be the future challenge in the management of infectious diseases.

Indexed as

beta-Lactam ResistanceCross InfectionDNA, BacterialHaemophilus influenzaeHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPneumonia, BacterialProof of Concept StudyProspective StudiesReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityStreptococcus pneumoniaeDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID28951981
OpenAlexW2759265729

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.