ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2019
Evaluation of the ePlex Blood Culture Identification Panels for Detection of Pathogens in Bloodstream Infections.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03876990 (Clinical and Medico-economic Evaluation of a Rapid Test), which is not on this map. Cited by 46 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.
Clinical and Medico-economic Evaluation of a Rapid Test (ePlex-BCID®, GenMark) for the Diagnosis of Bacteremia or Fungemia From Positive Blood Culture Bottles, Combining Fast Identification of Bacteria and Fungi and Evaluation of Bacterial Resistance to First Line Antibiotics.
Who cites it
46 citing papers in PubMed, 91 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical impact and cost-consequence analysis of ePlex® blood culture identification panels for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections: a single-center randomized controlled trial.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Trial
- Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Rapid Diagnostic Testing for the Identification of Pathogens and Resistance Genes in Bloodstream Infections.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Test Performance and Clinical Utility of the Cobas Eplex Blood Culture Identification Fungal Pathogen Panel.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Nanomotion-enabled ultra-rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing with magnetic bead-based pathogen enrichment for accelerated sepsis diagnostics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Rapid commercial CTX-M diagnostics: Performance, limitations and clinical impact.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
- Comparison of pathogen and resistance profiles in bloodstream infections using conventional methods and multiplex RT-PCR.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- Performance comparison and clinical validation of two rapid direct identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing approaches for pathogens isolated from positive blood cultures in children.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a new protocol for rapid identification ofJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- New Diagnostics for Fungal Infections in Transplant Infectious Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The role of rapid multiplex molecular syndromic panels in the clinical management of infections in critically ill patients: an experts-opinion document.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
- Getting Up to Speed: Rapid Pathogen and Antimicrobial Resistance Diagnostics in Sepsis.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Comparison of the Direct Identification and Short-Term Incubation Methods for Positive Blood Cultures via MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A multisite validation of a two hours antibiotic susceptibility flow cytometry assay directly from positive blood cultures.BMC microbiology · 2024Article
- Epidemiology and Outcomes of Non-albicans Candida Bloodstream Infections in Transplant Recipients and Cancer Patients.Mycopathologia · 2023Article
- Comparison of 3 diagnostic platforms for identification of bacteria and yeast from positive blood culture bottles.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Diagnosis of invasive fungal infections: challenges and recent developments.Journal of biomedical science · 2023Review
- Multicenter Evaluation of the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel for Pathogen Detection in Bloodstream Infections.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Test Performance and Potential Clinical Utility of the GenMark Dx ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram-Negative Panel.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Fast Track Diagnostic Tools for Clinical Management of Sepsis: Paradigm Shift from Conventional to Advanced Methods.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Shortening identification times: comparative observational study of three early blood culture testing protocols.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Observational
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid identification and susceptibility testing results are of importance for the early appropriate therapy of bloodstream infections. The ePlex (GenMark Diagnostics) blood culture identification (BCID) panels are fully automated PCR-based assays designed to identify Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, fungi, and bacterial resistance genes within 1.5 h from positive blood culture. Consecutive non-duplicate positive blood culture episodes were tested by the ePlex system prospectively. The choice of panel(s) (Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and/or fungal pathogens) was defined by Gram-stained microscopy of blood culture-positive bottles (BacT/Alert; bioMérieux). Results with the ePlex panels were compared to the identification results obtained by standard culture-based workflow. In total, 216 positive blood culture episodes were evaluable, yielding 263 identification results. The sensitivity/positive predictive value for detection by the ePlex panels of targeted cultured isolates were 97% and 99% for the Gram-positive panel and 99% and 96% for the Gram-negative panel, resulting in overall agreement rates of 96% and 94% for the Gram-positive and Gram-negative panel, respectively. All 26 samples with targeted resistance results were correctly detected by the ePlex panels. The ePlex panels provided highly accurate results and proved to be an excellent diagnostic tool for the rapid identification of pathogens causing bloodstream infections. The short time to results may be of added value for optimizing the clinical management of patients with sepsis.
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.