ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2022
Clinical yield of multiple testing with respiratory pathogen panels.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health system implementation of clinical decision support to optimize respiratory pathogen profile utilization.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Changes in use of multiplex respiratory panel testing during the COVID-19 pandemic.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2024Observational
- Diagnostic stewardship to support optimal use of multiplex molecular respiratory panels: A survey from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Though multiplex respiratory pathogen panels (RPP) have high sensitivity, multiple tests are occasionally performed simultaneously or in rapid succession in an attempt to increase the yield. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of this practice.
methods"Multiple testing" was defined as >1 RPP performed within 12 hours on the same patient and specimen type. All cases of multiple testing for adults at two hospitals over a 5-year period were included. Chart review was performed to determine whether discordant results led to a clinical diagnosis or change in clinical management.
resultsOf 18,779 RPPs, 462 (2.5%) represented cases of multiple testing. Twenty-six of 462 cases (5.6%) produced discordant results. Five discordant results (1.1% of 462 multiple testing episodes) were associated with a clinical diagnosis, and 4 (0.9%) influenced clinical management.
conclusionMultiple RPP testing facilitates clinical management in <1% of cases. Medical centers may consider de-implementing this practice.
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.