Observational studyBMC pediatrics2022
FilmArray® Meningoencephalitis panel in the diagnosis of central nervous system infections: stewardship and cost analysis in a paediatric hospital in Chile.
Observational study in BMC pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing meningitis diagnosis: a diagnostic stewardship workflow in a resource-limited setting.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnostic performance and clinical utility of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in suspected central nervous system infections: a prospective comparative study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic stewardship in infectious diseases: a scoping review.Journal of medical microbiology · 2024Article
- Use of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing to Identify Pathogens Involved in Central Nervous System Infections.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Clinical application value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the diagnosis of central nervous system infections.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral nervous system (CNS) infection has been an ongoing concern in paediatrics. The FilmArray® Meningoencephalitis (FAME) panel has greater sensitivity in identifying the aetiology of CNS infections. This study's objective was to compare the aetiological identification and hospitalization costs among patients with suspected CNS infection before and after the use of FAME.
methodsAn analytical observational study was carried out using a retrospective cohort for the pre-intervention (pre-FAME use) period and a prospective cohort for the post-intervention (post-FAME use) period in children with suspected CNS infection.
resultsA total of 409 CSF samples were analysed, 297 pre-intervention and 112 post-intervention. In the pre-intervention period, a total of 85.5% of patients required hospitalization, and in the post-intervention period 92.7% required hospitalization (p < 0.05). Median of ICU days was significantly lower in the post-intervention period than it was in the pre-intervention period. The overall positivity was 9.4 and 26.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). At ages 6 months and below, we found an increase in overall positivity from 2.6 to 28.1%, along with an increased detection of viral agents, S. agalactiae, S. pneumoniae, and N. meningitidis. The use of this diagnostic technology saved between $2916 and $12,240 USD in the cost of ICU bed-days. FAME use provided the opportunity for more accurate aetiological diagnosis of the infections and thus the provision of adequate appropriate treatment.
conclusionsThe cost/benefit ratio between FAME cost and ICU bed-day cost savings is favourable. Implementation of FAME in Chilean public hospitals saves public resources and improves the accuracy of aetiological diagnosis.
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.