Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39888105›Full record

ReviewTransplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society

Application of Syndromic Panels for respiratory Tract Infections in Lung Transplantation: A Critical Review on Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.

Andrea Lombardi, Giulia Renisi, Arianna Liparoti, Chiara Bobbio, Alessandra Bandera

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Donor-derived viral infections: the usual suspects and the new kids on the block.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Review
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors.

Andrea LombardiInfectious Diseases Unit, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0383-9579
Giulia RenisiInfectious Diseases Unit, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Arianna LiparotiInfectious Diseases Unit, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Chiara BobbioDepartment of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Alessandra BanderaInfectious Diseases Unit, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.

Funding

NextGeneration EU-MUR PNRR Extended Partnership initiative on Emerging Infectious Diseases PE00000007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfections are a common complication among lung transplant recipients (LuTR), particularly in the first year post-transplant, with respiratory tract infections (RTI) being predominant. Syndromic molecular panels have been suggested to reduce morbidity and mortality by providing a diagnosis quickly. However, integrating these panels into clinical practice remains debated.

methodsAn electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase to identify studies on applying syndromic panels for RTI diagnosis in LuTR. Three reviewers independently screened-extracted data from relevant studies, focusing on concordance between syndromic panels and standard microbiologic tests and reporting isolates not detected by syndromic panels.

resultsFour studies met the inclusion criteria, including 308 patients. The BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel was the syndromic panel most frequently employed. In three studies, the syndromic panel was employed in LuTR with suspected RTI or during routine surveillance bronchoalveolar lavage; only in one case was the syndromic panel employed during the transplant procedure on samples from the donor. Agreement between syndromic panels and standard tests ranged from 0.56 to 0.98, with result turnaround times between 2.3 and 21.2 h. Sensitivity ranged from 58% to 94%, and specificity from 78% to 100%. Pathogens outside syndromic panels targets but identified by standard tests included Candida spp., unspecified gram-negative rods, and Aspergillus spp.

conclusionSyndromic panels offer a faster alternative to standard microbiologic tests. However, they miss numerous possible pathogens, highlighting the necessity for concurrent standard testing. Further research is needed to establish the most efficient integration of syndromic panels in LuTx infection diagnostic.

Indexed as

Lung TransplantationRespiratory Tract InfectionsHumansSensitivity and Specificityfast microbiologylung transplantmulti‐drug resistanceprophylaxissyndromic panel

Identifiers

PMID39888105
PMCPMC12892830

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.