Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31647847›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

A review of a 13-month period of FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis panel implementation as a first-line diagnosis tool at a university hospital.

Agathe Boudet, Alix Pantel, Marie-Josée Carles, Hélène Boclé, Sylvie Charachon, Cécilia Enault, Robin Stéphan, Lucile Cadot, Jean-Philippe Lavigne, Hélène Marchandin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Unexpectedly High False-Positive Rates forFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors.

Agathe BoudetU1047, INSERM, Montpellier University, Department of Microbiology, Nîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Alix PantelU1047, INSERM, Montpellier University, Department of Microbiology, Nîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Marie-Josée CarlesDepartment of Microbiology, Nîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Hélène BocléU1047, INSERM, Montpellier University, Department of Infectious Diseases, Nîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Sylvie CharachonDepartment of Microbiology, Nîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Cécilia EnaultDepartment of Microbiology, Nîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Robin StéphanU1047, INSERM, Montpellier University, Department of Microbiology, Nîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Lucile CadotLaboratory of Medical Biology, Alès General Hospital, Alès, France.
Jean-Philippe LavigneU1047, INSERM, Montpellier University, Department of Microbiology, Nîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Hélène MarchandinHydroSciences Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, Montpellier University, Department of Microbiology, Nimes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2130-6335

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early diagnosis and treatment of meningitis and encephalitis is essential for reducing both their morbidity and mortality. The FilmArray® Meningitis/Encephalitis (FA-M/E) panel is a recently available molecular tool allowing the simultaneous detection of 14 pathogens in about one hour. We evaluated its routine use over a 13-month period at Nîmes University Hospital, France. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens were prospectively analyzed, independently of cell count; results were retrospectively analyzed and positive results compared to clinical and microbiological data. Among the 708 patients included (734 CSF samples), 89 (12.6%) had a positive FA-M/E panel, 71 (80%) for a viral pathogen and 18 (20%) for a bacterial pathogen. Enterovirus and HHV-6 were the main detected pathogens. Mean time-to-results was 1h46mn. Four non-clinically relevant results were detected (3 HHV-6 and 1 Haemophilus influenzae) on the basis of inconsistent clinical and/or biological data, and/or after visualization of melting curves. No CSF pleocytosis was observed in 11% of the patients with a positive FA-M/E panel. For the 18 patients with a positive FA-M/E panel for a bacterial pathogen, five (28%) had CSF samples showing a positive Gram stain allowing an early diagnosis of bacterial infection and 67% had CSF displaying a positive culture. Altogether the panel detected 5 cases of bacterial M/E (29%) not diagnosed by culture. Despite undeniable advantages, mainly ease of use, quick result availability, and an extremely low rate of invalid results, measures should be implemented to limit false-positive results due to contamination and a careful interpretation based on the overall data for each patient is required.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBacteriaChildChild, PreschoolEncephalitisFemaleFungiHospitals, UniversityHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMeningitis

Identifiers

PMID31647847
PMCPMC6812749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.