ArticleBMC research notes2018
A comparison of the Allplex™ bacterial and viral assays to conventional methods for detection of gastroenteritis agents.
Article in BMC research notes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- A One Health Insight into NoncholericOpen forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Multiplex Gastrointestinal Panel Testing in Hospitalized Patients With Acute Diarrhea in Thailand.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Physician-directed microbiological testing versus syndromic multiplex PCR in gastroenteritis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Article
- Enhancing enteric pathogen detection: implementation and impact of multiplex PCR for improved diagnosis and surveillance.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- New Developments in PCR-Based Diagnostics for Bacterial Pathogens Causing Gastrointestinal Infections-A Narrative Mini-Review on Challenges in the Tropics.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2021Review
- An Overview of the Molecular Methods in the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Infectious Diseases.International journal of microbiology · 2020Review
- Guideline for the Antibiotic Use in Acute Gastroenteritis.Infection & chemotherapy · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMolecular methods to detect diarrheal pathogens are increasingly being used in place of conventional methods. We compared a new multiplex real-time PCR assay for detection of both bacterial and viral gastroenteritis agents, the Allplex™ Gastrointestinal Panel Assays (AGPA), to conventional methods (stool culture for bacterial pathogens and electron microscopy (EM) for viral pathogens).
resultsGastrointestinal viruses, in particular norovirus genogroup II viruses, were detected by the AGPA in a high number of specimens that were negative by EM. For bacterial pathogens, the AGPA was able to detect the organisms grown in culture with high sensitivity and additionally detected several types of E. coli, such as enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC), enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC), and non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), that could not be detected with conventional culture methods. Overall, the AGPA had a > 2-fold higher detection rate than the conventional methods, with 24/135 (17.8%) samples positive by conventional methods and 60/135 (44.4%) by AGPA. Thus, diarrhea pathogen detection rates increased substantially with the use of the AGPA as compared to conventional methods.
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.