ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2022
Evaluation of a multiplex PCR kit for detection of 17 respiratory pathogens in hospitalized patients.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical application of targeted next-generation sequencing in pneumonia diagnosis among cancer patients.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Impact of Nested Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay in the management of pediatric patients with acute respiratory tract infections: a single center experience.Le infezioni in medicina · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rapid pathogen identification is critical for optimizing diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a sensitive, broad-spectrum molecular detection technique that is simple and rapid to perform. It is capable of simultaneously screening for multiple pathogens within a short time range. Here, we designed and evaluated a multiplex PCR kit for the identification of 17 common respiratory pathogens in clinical samples from hospitalized patients. Methods: A total of 452 samples from hospitalized patients, including 242 respiratory and 210 non-respiratory samples, were analyzed for 13 bacteria and 4 fungi by a multiplex fluorescent PCR kit. The diagnostic performance of the kit was assessed by considering routine microbiology as the reference standard. Results: The overall positivity rate of the multiplex PCR kit was 86.9%, much higher than that noted on routine microbiology (56.9%). Furthermore, the co-infection detection rate was also significantly higher than that noted on routine microbiology (69.5% Conclusions: Our multiplex PCR kit offers a rapid and sensitive diagnosis of common bacterial pneumonia, although sensitivity for mycobacteria and fungi warrants enhancement. Further optimization includes minimizing false positivity and increasing relevance to clinical application.
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.