ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2025
Evaluation of a sample-to-answer real-time PCR assay for enterovirus detection in cerebrospinal fluid.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enteroviruses frequently cause aseptic meningitis, necessitating differentiation from bacterial meningitis to avoid unnecessary antimicrobial treatment and improve patient management. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) remains the gold standard for enterovirus detection in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) due to its high sensitivity and rapid turnaround time. The discontinuation of the Cepheid Xpert EV assay has created a gap in diagnostics. This study aimed to optimize two laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays using Diasorin direct amplification disc (DAD) and universal disc (UD) methods compared to the previously standard Cepheid Xpert EV assay. A total of 87 clinical CSF specimens were tested to assess sensitivity, specificity, and overall performance. There was no significant difference between the performance of the three assays compared to standard of care results. The Xpert EV and DAD methods had a 79.6% positive agreement, while the UD method had an 86.4% positive agreement. All methods achieved 100% negative agreement. Specificity testing against non-enteroviral pathogens confirmed no cross-reactivity. The estimated limit of detection was 100 copies/mL for Xpert EV, 250 copies/mL for UD, and 1,000 copies/mL for DAD, though clinical sensitivity remained high. Blood contamination affected the DAD assay but not the UD method due to its RNA extraction step. This study demonstrates the potential of DAD and UD methods as viable alternatives for rapid enterovirus detection in CSF, essential for patient management following the discontinuation of the Xpert EV assay. Further validation and comparison are needed for broader clinical applications.IMPORTANCERapid and accurate detection of enteroviruses in cerebrospinal fluid is crucial for patient management in cases of aseptic meningitis, especially following the discontinuation of the Cepheid Xpert EV assay. This study evaluates two laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays utilizing Diasorin direct amplification disc and universal disc methods, demonstrating their potential as viable alternatives for enterovirus detection with high sensitivity and specificity.
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.