Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39714177›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2025

Comparison of positive BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis (ME) panels, CSF cultures, CSF parameters, clinical presentation and in-patient mortality among patients with bacterial and fungal meningitis.

Thein Myint, Jaime Soria, Yuanzheng Gao, Marice Ruiz Conejo Castillo, Vaneet Arora, Julie A Ribes

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Mindful diagnostics: a central nervous system infection case study.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The clinical impact of herpesvirus testing on multiplex PCR panels in a pediatric population.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Thein MyintDivision of Infectious Diseases, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6164-4120
Jaime SoriaDivision of Infectious Diseases, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5863-0502
Yuanzheng GaoDepartment of Pathology, Cooper University Health Care Allied Health Programs, Camden, New Jersey, USA.
Marice Ruiz Conejo CastilloCrescentCare, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Vaneet AroraDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Julie A RibesDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4563-6008

Funding

Kentucky Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR001998 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI HARTMANN, KATHERINE E, KERN, PHILIP A · 2016 to 2025
$34.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001998
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel (MEP) was brought to the University of Kentucky in 2016 to aid in the identification of community-acquired meningitis and encephalitis (ME). This panel has shown variable performance with some institutions showing high sensitivity and specificity for many pathogens but others seeing false positives during clinical use. We evaluated the panel's performance using retrospective chart review of patients at the University of Kentucky from October 2016 to September 2022, including 7,551 MEP results. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples with positive results for bacterial and fungal pathogens were compared with CSF and blood cultures, other laboratory parameters, and clinical presentations, to classify MEP results as true positive (TP), likely TP, or false positive (FP). Of 132 patients with positive bacterial or fungal MEP results, 48.9% of bacterial and 88.9% of cryptococcal analytes were classified as TP. The positive predictive value (PPV) varied by organism, with the highest being IMPORTANCE: This study compares the performance of the meningitis/encephalitis panel (MEP) in detecting bacterial and fungal pathogens with cerebrospinal fluid cultures and other parameters. Almost half of bacterial analytes of MEP had positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or blood cultures; the remaining 42% of bacterial analytes were correlated with clinical presentation and other CSF parameters. 27.4% (29 out of 106) cases would not have had a pathogen definitively identified if the MEP had not been used. This study highlights the importance of using MEP as a diagnostic tool, especially in patients who have already received antibiotics, where traditional culture-based methods may not be diagnostic. This research underscores the use of MEP in improving the speed of diagnosing meningitis. However, it emphasizes that MEP can produce false positive results in some patients. It is therefore necessary to interpret MEP results together with clinical assessments and other diagnostic tests to ensure the most accurate diagnosis.

Indexed as

EncephalitisMeningitis, BacterialMeningitis, FungalAdolescentAdultAgedBacteriaCerebrospinal FluidFemaleFungiHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityBioFiremeningitis/encephalitis (ME) panelspositive predictive value

Identifiers

PMID39714177
PMCPMC11792450

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.