ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2024
Optimization of the Diagnosis of Central Nervous System Infections in Vietnamese Hospitals: Results From a Retrospective Multicenter Study.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Faster Results, Better Care? Impact of Meningitis/Encephalitis Syndromic Panel Testing on Pathogen Detection and Hospital Outcomes Beyond CSF Culture: A Literature Search for Diagnosticians.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- No evidence of hepatitis E virus-associated central nervous system infections in a Vietnamese multicenter cohort.IJID regions · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Diagnostic Utility of 16S Oxford Nanopore Technology Sequencing in Patients With Central Nervous System Infections and Its Usefulness in Antimicrobial Stewardship.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Novel techniques for the diagnosis of neurological infections.Current opinion in neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Central nervous system infections pose significant health challenges, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, because of high morbidity and mortality rates. Rapid and accurate diagnosis is essential for effective treatment to prevent adverse outcomes. Traditional culture-based diagnostics are often slow and lack specificity. This study evaluates the BioFire FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis (FAME) Panel against standard diagnostics in Vietnam to assess its clinical impact and suitability for local epidemiology. Methods: We conducted a prospective study involving 330 patients with suspected central nervous system infections at 4 hospitals in northern Vietnam from July 2022 to April 2023. Cerebrospinal fluid samples were analyzed using routine culture methods and FAME. We compared pathogen detection rates and assessed the potential clinical impact of FAME results on patient management. Results: Of the 330 cerebrospinal fluid specimens, 64 (19%) were positive by either conventional diagnostics (n = 48) and/or FAME (n = 33). The agreement between FAME and conventional diagnostics was 87%. Key pathogens Conclusions: FAME complements traditional diagnostics by offering rapid and broad pathogen detection, crucial for timely and appropriate therapy. However, its effectiveness varies with local epidemiology, and it should not replace conventional methods entirely. Tailoring diagnostic panels to regional pathogen prevalence is recommended to enhance diagnostic accuracy and clinical outcomes in low- and middle-income countries.
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.