ArticleClinical microbiology newsletter2017
Rapid Molecular Panels: What Is in the Best Interest of the Patient? A Review of Patient Outcome Studies for Multiplex Panels Used in Bloodstream, Respiratory, and Neurological Infections.
Article in Clinical microbiology newsletter, 2017. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Value of syndromic panels in the management of severe community-acquired pneumonia.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2022Review
- Cepheid XpertInfluenza and other respiratory viruses · 2021Article
- Advances in Diagnostic Testing that Impact Infection Prevention and Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs.Current infectious disease reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the clinical microbiology laboratory, the focus when choosing new tests is often on performance, turnaround time, and labor needs. This review examines available rapid, multiplexed tests from a different perspective: that of the patient. It considers whether published evidence supports the notion that use of rapid, on-demand tests (as opposed to batched testing) leads to better patient outcomes and whether broad, syndrome-based, multiplexed panels translate into better patient care than narrower monoplex or duplex assays. Finally, we examine how synergy between the clinical microbiology and antimicrobial stewardship programs is necessary to ensure that rapid tests, if implemented, impact the patients they are designed to support.
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.