SynthesisAnnals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials2022
Evaluation of GeneXpert EV assay for the rapid diagnosis of enteroviral meningitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of convolutional neural network-based AI in detecting oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative analysis of elastosonography and 18 F-FDG PET/CT in differentiating benign and malignant salivary gland tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of a sample-to-answer real-time PCR assay for enterovirus detection in cerebrospinal fluid.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance ofOncology letters · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneXpert enterovirus Assay is a PCR-based assay for Enterovirus meningitis diagnosis. However, there is currently no research about the performance of GeneXpert enterovirus assay in the diagnosis of enterovirus meningitis. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis is significant on the topic.
methodsEmbase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PubMed were systematically reviewed with retrieval types. Some criteria were used to filter the studies. Only studies published in English, that made a comparison between GeneXpert enterovirus assay and RT-PCR, and could be formulated in a 2*2 table, were included. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by QUADAS-2. The effect of the GeneXpert enterovirus assay was assessed by the Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Likelihood Ratio, Negative Likelihood Ratio, Diagnosis Odds Ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Publication bias and heterogeneity were evaluated by the Deeks' funnel test and Bivariate Box plot respectively.
results7 studies were recruited in the analysis. The Pooled Sensitivity was 0.96 [95% CI (0.94-0.97)], Pooled Specificity was 0.99 [95% CI (0.98-0.99)], Positive Likelihood Ratio was 130.46 [95% CI (35.79-475.58)], Negative Likelihood Ratio was 0.04 [95% CI (0.02-0.10)], and Diagnostic Odds Ratio was 3648.23 (95% CI [963.99-13,806.72)]. In SROC Curve, Area Under Curve (AUC) was 0.9980, and Q*= 0.9849. In Deeks' funnel test, the P-value was 0.807 (P > 0.05), indicating no publication bias. The Bivariate Box plot indicated no evident heterogeneity.
conclusionsThe GeneXpert enterovirus assay demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing enterovirus meningitis.
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.