Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38656204›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2024

Microbiological diagnosis of pleural infections: a comparative evaluation of a novel syndromic real-time PCR panel.

Øyvind Kommedal, Tomas Mikal Eagan, Øystein Fløtten, Truls Michael Leegaard, William Siljan, Hilde Fardal, Bjørnar Bø, Fredrik Grøvan, Kjersti Wik Larssen, Arne Kildahl-Andersen and 5 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Microbial Detection in Community-Acquired Pleural Space Infections Using the BIOFIRE Joint Infection Panel and Individual Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  2. What is new in pleural infections?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Open forum infectious diseases · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Øyvind KommedalDepartment of Microbiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-4390-0370
Tomas Mikal EaganDepartment of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Øystein FløttenDepartment of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Truls Michael LeegaardDivision of Medicine and Laboratory Sciences, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
William SiljanDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Lorenskog, Akershus, Norway.
Hilde FardalDepartment of Microbiology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Bjørnar BøDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Fredrik GrøvanDepartment of Medicine, Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Kjersti Wik LarssenDepartment of Medical Microbiology, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Arne Kildahl-AndersenDepartment of Thoracic Medicine, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Reidar HjetlandDepartment of Microbiology, Førde Central Hospital, Førde, Norway.
Rune TilsethDepartment of Medicine, Førde Central Hospital, Førde, Norway.
Sølvi Kristine Øyen HareideDepartment of Microbiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Marit TellevikDepartment of Microbiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Ruben DyrhovdenDepartment of Microbiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-2486-5426
Haukeland University Hospital · NOHelse Førde · NOStavanger University Hospital · NOSt Olav's University Hospital · NOAkershus University Hospital · NOHaraldsplass Diakonale Sykehus · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current microbial diagnostics for pleural infections are insufficient. Studies using 16S targeted next-generation sequencing report that only 10%-16% of bacteria present are cultured and that 50%-78% of pleural fluids containing relevant microbial DNA remain culture negative. As a rapid diagnostic alternative suitable for clinical laboratories, we wanted to explore a PCR-based approach. Based on the identification of key pathogens, we developed a syndromic PCR panel for community-acquired pleural infections (CAPIs). This was a pragmatic PCR panel, meaning that it was not designed for detecting all possibly involved bacterial species but for confirming the diagnosis of CAPI, and for detecting bacteria that might influence choice of antimicrobial treatment. We evaluated the PCR panel on 109 confirmed CAPIs previously characterized using culture and 16S targeted next-generation sequencing. The PCR secured the diagnosis of CAPI in 107/109 (98.2%) and detected all present pathogens in 69/109 (63.3%). Culture secured the diagnosis in 54/109 (49.5%) and detected all pathogens in 31/109 (28.4%). Corresponding results for 16S targeted next-generation sequencing were 109/109 (100%) and 98/109 (89.9%). For bacterial species included in the PCR panel, PCR had a sensitivity of 99.5% (184/185), culture of 21.6% (40/185), and 16S targeted next-generation sequencing of 92.4% (171/185). None of the bacterial species present not covered by the PCR panel were judged to impact antimicrobial therapy. A syndromic PCR panel represents a rapid and sensitive alternative to current diagnostic approaches for the microbiological diagnosis of CAPI.IMPORTANCEPleural empyema is a severe infection with high mortality and increasing incidence. Long hospital admissions and long courses of antimicrobial treatment drive healthcare and ecological costs. Current methods for microbiological diagnostics of pleural infections are inadequate. Recent studies using 16S targeted next-generation sequencing as a reference standard find culture to recover only 10%-16% of bacteria present and that 50%-78% of samples containing relevant bacterial DNA remain culture negative. To confirm the diagnosis of pleural infection and define optimal antimicrobial therapy while limiting unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, there is a need for rapid and sensitive diagnostic approaches. PCR is a rapid method well suited for clinical laboratories. In this paper we show that a novel syndromic PCR panel can secure the diagnosis of pleural infection and detect all bacteria relevant for choice of antimicrobial treatment with a high sensitivity.

Indexed as

BacteriaReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBacterial InfectionsCommunity-Acquired InfectionsDNA, BacterialFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPleural DiseasesRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSensitivity and SpecificityDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SdiagnosticsFusobacterium nucleatumpleural empyemapleural infectionStreptococcus intermediussyndromic PCR

Identifiers

PMID38656204
PMCPMC11237507
OpenAlexW4395110008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.