ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2019
Development and validation of an advanced fragment analysis-based assay for the detection of 22 pathogens in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with meningitis and encephalitis.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular diagnostic methods for rapid diagnosis of central nervous system infections.Frontiers in medical technology · 2025Review
- Multiplex detection of meningitis and encephalitis pathogens: A study from laboratory to clinic.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Development and validation of an advanced fragment analysis-based assay for the detection of 22 pathogens in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with meningitis and encephalitis.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeningitis and encephalitis (ME) are central nervous system (CNS) infections mainly caused by bacteria, mycobacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites that result in high morbidity and mortality. The early, accurate diagnosis of pathogens in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and timely medication are associated with better prognosis. Conventional methods, such as culture, microscopic examination, serological detection, CSF routine analysis, and radiological findings, either are time-consuming or lack sensitivity and specificity.
methodsTo address these clinical needs, we developed an advanced fragment analysis (AFA)-based assay for the multiplex detection of 22 common ME pathogens, including eight viruses, 11 bacteria, and three fungi. The detection sensitivity of each target was evaluated with a recombinant plasmid. The limits of detection of the 22 pathogens ranged from 15 to 120 copies/reaction. We performed a retrospective study to analyze the pathogens from the CSF specimens of 170 clinically diagnosed ME patients using an AFA-based assay and compared the results with culture (bacteria and fungi), microscopic examination (fungi), polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Mycobacterium tuberculosis), and Sanger sequencing (virus) results.
resultsThe sensitivity of the AFA assay was 100% for 10 analytes. For Cryptococcus neoformans, the sensitivity was 63.6%. The overall specificity was 98.2%. The turnaround time was reduced to 4-6 hours from the 3-7 days required using conventional methods.
conclusionsIn conclusion, the AFA-based assay provides a rapid, sensitive, and accurate method for pathogen detection from CSF samples.
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.