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.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Concerns about "BIOFIRE FILMARRAY Meningitis/Encephalitis panel for the aetiological diagnosis of central nervous system infections: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis" byEClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- 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
- A post-implementation evaluation of BioFire FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis panel for pathogen detection in cerebrospinal fluid with a special focus on clinical significance of HHV-6.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Observational
- Mindful diagnostics: a central nervous system infection case study.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
- A Pilot Study Using Microbial Glycolipid Signatures to Diagnose Nosocomial Ventriculitis.Rapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM · 2025Article
- Novel techniques for the diagnosis of neurological infections.Current opinion in neurology · 2025Review
- The clinical impact of herpesvirus testing on multiplex PCR panels in a pediatric population.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Current methods in the diagnosis of invasive meningococcal disease.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.