ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2024
Clinical utility of multiplex PCR in the detection of pathogens from sterile body fluids.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- 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
- Complementary mNGS and traditional testing for bloodstream infections.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2026Review
- Molecular Quantification of Total and ToxigenicToxins · 2025Article
- Development of two multiplex PCR assays for rapid detection of eleven Gram-negative bacteria in children with septicemia.Tropical medicine and health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid identification of pathogens in normally sterile body fluid (NSBF) is essential for appropriate patient management, specifically antimicrobial therapy. Limited sensitivity and increased time to detection of traditional culture prompted us to evaluate additional testing to contribute to the diagnosis of infection. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the GenMark Dx ePlex Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panels on positive body fluids inoculated into blood culture bottles for the detection of microorganisms. A total of 88 positive body fluids from blood culture bottles were analyzed using a Gram-Positive, Gram-Negative, and/or Fungal pathogen BCID Panel based on the Gram stain result. Each result was compared to routine culture performed from the positive bottle. When using culture as a reference standard, we found the ePlex multiplex panel performed with a positive percent agreement of 96.5% and a negative percent agreement of 99.8%. The use of multiplex PCR may be a useful supplement to routine culture for NSBF in blood culture bottles. IMPORTANCE: The identification of pathogens in normally sterile body fluid (NSBF) is performed using routine culture, the current gold standard. Limitations of this method include sensitivity and increased turnaround times which could potentially delay vital patient care, especially antimicrobial therapy. Adaptations of NSBF in blood culture bottles prompted us to consider the utility of additional methods to bridge the gap in diagnostic challenges for these life-threatening infections. Multiplex molecular panels have been manufactured for use with multiple specimen types including blood, cerebral spinal fluid, stool, and respiratory. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the off-label use of ePlex Blood Culture Identification Panels on positive body fluids grown in blood culture bottles for the detection of microorganisms for research purposes.
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.