ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2020
Comparison of Multiplex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel and Conventional Stool Testing for Evaluation of Patients With HIV Infection.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiplex polymerase chain reaction for pathogen identification and antibiotic stewardship in human immunodeficiency virus-associated diarrhea: A retrospective study and systematic review.SAGE open medicine · 2026Review
- Sexually transmitted enteric infections in men who have sex with men.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- PCR-Based Versus Conventional Stool Testing in Hospitalized Patients with Diarrhea: Diagnostic Yield, Clinical Impact, and Stewardship Implications.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Panels for Gastrointestinal Infections: Current Evidence, Regulatory Hurdles, and the Way Forward.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial changes made for suspected infectious diarrhea after positive gastrointestinal pathogen panel result.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Multiplex Gastrointestinal Panel Testing in Hospitalized Patients With Acute Diarrhea in Thailand.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Risk factors and provider awareness of sexually transmitted enteric pathogens among men who have sex with men.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Multicenter evaluation of BioCode GPP for syndromic molecular detection of gastrointestinal pathogens from stool specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- The influence of hospitalization and HIV severity on gastrointestinal PCR panel evaluation of HIV-related acute diarrhea in New York City: a retrospective, cross-sectional study.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal pathogen panels (GPPs) are increasingly used to identify stool pathogens, but their impact in people with HIV (PWH) is unknown. We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing GPP and conventional stool evaluation in PWH.
methodsWe included all PWH who underwent GPP (Biofire Diagnostics; implemented September 15, 2015) or conventional testing, including stool culture,
resultsOverall, 124 patient samples tested positive by GPP, compared with 45 patient specimens by conventional testing. The GPP group demonstrated a higher co-infection rate (48.4% vs 13.3%;
conclusionsIn PWH, GPP implementation improved antibiotic stewardship through shorter turnaround times and detection of enteric viral pathogens.
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.