ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2021
A Multicenter Clinical Study To Demonstrate the Diagnostic Accuracy of the GenMark Dx ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram-Negative Panel.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical impact and cost-consequence analysis of ePlex® blood culture identification panels for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections: a single-center randomized controlled trial.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Trial
- Impact of a Rapid Change in Beta-lactam Resistance Epidemiology on the Management of Patients With Bloodstream Infections.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- [Requirements for the rational use of antibiotics based on antibiotic stewardship].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Rapid commercial CTX-M diagnostics: Performance, limitations and clinical impact.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
- Comparison of pathogen and resistance profiles in bloodstream infections using conventional methods and multiplex RT-PCR.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- Rapid detection of gram-negative antimicrobial resistance determinants directly from positive blood culture broths using a multiplex PCR system.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Rapid Detection of Pathogens and Resistance Genes Grown in Blood Cultures with Two Multiplex Tandem Real-Time PCR Kits.Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- The role of rapid multiplex molecular syndromic panels in the clinical management of infections in critically ill patients: an experts-opinion document.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
- Laboratory detection of carbapenemases among Gram-negative organisms.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Review
- Evaluation of an expanded antibiotic resistance gene panel on prediction of antimicrobial susceptibility results for Gram-negative bacteria in blood cultures.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Getting Up to Speed: Rapid Pathogen and Antimicrobial Resistance Diagnostics in Sepsis.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Test Performance and Potential Clinical Utility of the GenMark Dx ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram-Negative Panel.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Impact of a Rapid Molecular Test for Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase and Ceftazidime-Avibactam Use on Outcomes After Bacteremia Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Observational
- A Closer Look at the Laboratory Impact of Utilizing ePlex Blood Culture Identification Panels: a Workflow Analysis Using Rapid Molecular Detection for Positive Blood Cultures.Microbiology spectrum · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacteremia can progress to septic shock and death without appropriate medical intervention. Increasing evidence supports the role of molecular diagnostic panels in reducing the clinical impact of these infections through rapid identification of the infecting organism and associated antimicrobial resistance genes. We report the results of a multicenter clinical study assessing the performance of the GenMark Dx ePlex investigational-use-only blood culture identification Gram-negative panel (BCID-GN), a rapid diagnostic assay for detection of bloodstream pathogens in positive blood culture (PBC) bottles. Prospective, retrospective, and contrived samples were tested. Results from the BCID-GN were compared to standard-of-care bacterial identification methods. Antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) were identified using PCR and sequence analysis. The final BCID-GN analysis included 2,444 PBC samples, of which 926 were clinical samples with negative Gram stain results. Of these, 109 samples had false-negative and/or -positive results, resulting in an overall sample accuracy of 88.2% (817/926). After discordant resolution, overall sample accuracy increased to 92.9% (860/926). Pre- and postdiscordant resolution sample accuracy excludes 37 Gram-negative organisms representing 20 uncommon genera, 10 Gram-positive organisms, and 1
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.