Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32087681›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2020

Implementation of the FilmArray ME panel in laboratory routine using a simple sample selection strategy for diagnosis of meningitis and encephalitis.

Susanne Pfefferle, Martin Christner, Martin Aepfelbacher, Marc Lütgehetmann, Holger Rohde

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Implementation of the eazyplexEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Susanne PfefferleInstitut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Virologie und Hygiene, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. s.pfefferle@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7489-6557
Martin ChristnerInstitut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Virologie und Hygiene, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Martin AepfelbacherInstitut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Virologie und Hygiene, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Marc LütgehetmannInstitut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Virologie und Hygiene, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Holger RohdeInstitut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Virologie und Hygiene, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfectious meningitis is a serious disease and patient outcome relies on fast and reliable diagnostics. A syndromic panel testing approach like the FilmArray ME can accelerate diagnosis and therefore decrease the time to pathogen specific therapy. Yet, its clinical utility is controversial, mainly because of a remaining uncertainty in correct interpretation of results, limited data on its performance on clinical specimens and its relatively high costs. The aim of this study was to analyze clinical performance of the assay in a real life setting at a tertiary university hospital using a pragmatic and simple sample selection strategy to reduce the overall cost burden.

methodsOver a period of 18 months we received 4623 CSF samples (2338 hospitalizations, 1601 individuals). FilmArray ME analysis was restricted to CSF-samples with a high pretest probability of infectious meningitis, e.g. positive Gram-stain, samples in which leukocytes and/or bacteria were evident or urgent suspicion of infection was communicated by clinicians. N = 171 samples matched to our risk criteria and were subjected to FilmArray ME analysis. Those samples were also analyzed by reference methods: culture only (n = 45), PCR only (n = 20) or both methods (n = 106).

results56/171 (32.75%) were FilmArray ME positive. Bacterial pathogens were detected in 30/56 (53.57%), viral pathogens were detected in 27/56 (48.21%) and yeast DNA was detected in 1/56 (1.79%) of positive samples. Double detection occurred in 2/56 samples. In 52/56 (92.86%) FilmArray ME positive samples, results could be confirmed by the reference assays (sensitivity = 96.30%, specificity =96.58%).

conclusionThe FilmArray ME assay is a fast and reliable diagnostic tool for the management of infectious meningitis and can easily be implemented in routine diagnostic workflows. However, correlation of test results and underlying clinical symptoms requires experienced users and the awareness of potentially false negative or false positive results. Moreover, considering the need for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, the use of molecular tests as a stand-alone diagnostic cannot be recommended.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineEncephalitisGentian VioletGermanyHospitals, UniversityHumansLaboratoriesMeningitisMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionPhenazinesProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityStaining and LabelingTertiary Care CentersGentian VioletGram's stainPhenazinesFilm Array MEInfectious meningitisRapid diagnosticSyndromic panel testing

Identifiers

PMID32087681
PMCPMC7036261
OpenAlexW3012853201

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.