ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Novel PCR Panel for Bacterial Detection in Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: A Comparative Study with Culture Results.
Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Limit of Blank Variability as a Determinant of Analytical Sensitivity in a DNA-Binding Dye-Based Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction for the Detection of Chlamydia pneumoniae.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Evolving Approaches to Bacterial Identification: A Review of Classical and Modern Techniques.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- A one-pot CRISPR/Cas12b assay for extraction-free and visual detection of Haemophilus influenzae.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Coinfections and superinfections in critically ill COVID-19 patients in Ecuador: a cross-sectional study of bacterial and viral pathogens.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lower respiratory tract (LRT) infections require rapid and accurate diagnosis. While bacterial culture remains the gold standard, multiplex PCR (mPCR) enables faster and more sensitive detection of multiple pathogens. This study evaluates the Bio-Speedy mPCR panel for 18 bacteria in comparison to conventional culture. A total of 100 LRT samples were analyzed. Complete concordance between the methods was observed in 85% of samples, with mPCR detecting pathogens slightly more frequently (62% vs. 53%). Discrepancies were primarily due to prior antibiotic therapy, low bacterial loads, colonization, or pathogens not included in the PCR panel. The sensitivity and specificity of mPCR were 79.3% and 96.8%, respectively, with negative agreement at 98.9% and positive agreement at 57.0%. Considering culture-negative but clinically relevant PCR-positive results, the sensitivity improved to 98.1% and the positive agreement to 86.7%. mPCR offers early pathogen detection, enabling timely therapy and potentially improving outcomes, particularly in intensive care settings. While culture remains indispensable for viable pathogen identification, combining mPCR with conventional methods provides complementary information, particularly when prior antibiotic use or the presence of fastidious pathogens may compromise culture results. Careful consideration of cost, patient population, and clinical context is recommended for optimal implementation of mPCR panels.
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.