ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2019
Reproducibility of positive results for rare pathogens on the FilmArray GI Panel.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repeat multiplex PCR gastrointestinal panel testing within 14 days yields minimal additional diagnostic information: a multicenter cohort study.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2026Article
- Clinical decision support for gastrointestinal panel testing.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Article
- Impact of COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place Order on Transmission of Gastrointestinal Pathogens in Northern California.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Evidence of False Positivity forOpen forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Advances in Cyclosporiasis Diagnosis and Therapeutic Intervention.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Though the FilmArray GI Panel has a reported aggregate specificity and reproducibility of >97% and > 99%, respectively, the reproducibility is less understood in clinical practice. We measured the reproducibility of positive results for low-prevalence pathogens. Samples with positive results for selected targets were repeated using a different FilmArray module. Overall, 331 of 373 (89%) results were reproducible. Giardia lamblia (57/57, 100%), Cryptosporidium spp. (61/63, 97%), Cyclospora cayetanensis (34/35, 97%), Plesiomonas shigelloides (17/18, 94%), and Rotavirus A (76/77, 99%) were highly reproducible, while Adenovirus F40/41 (38/54, 70%), Vibrio spp. (8/10, 80%), V. cholerae (3/8, 37.5%), and Yersinia enterocolitica (36/50, 72%) were poorly reproducible. Review of 38 patients with nonreproducible results showed that 19 (50%) had evidence of gastroenteritis and only 6 (16%) had possible infection with the organism that showed a nonreproducible result. Higher false-positive rates with certain targets on FAGP emphasize the need for diagnostic stewardship.
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.