ArticleThe journal of applied laboratory medicine2026
Mapping the Literature on the Impact of Gastrointestinal Multiplexed Pathogen Panels on Clinical and Healthcare Utilization Outcomes: A Scoping Review.
Article in The journal of applied laboratory medicine, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal pathogen multiplex panels (GPPs) can test a single stool specimen for multiple pathogen targets in less than 5 h with some as little as 1 h. Although GPPs have demonstrated rapid and sensitive detection, their increased cost and unclear reimbursement structures have put into question their value and role in the cost-effective management of patients with gastrointestinal infections. We performed a scoping review to identify and systematically map the existing literature regarding the impact of GPPs on immediate, proximal, and distal clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes across healthcare settings.
methodsDatabases were searched from inception until November 22, 2022. Full research articles in English were eligible for inclusion if they included a multiplexed (≥3 targets) nucleic acid amplification testing method and conventional microbiology comparator method performed on clinical samples.
resultsA total of 6027 potential studies were identified. Following title and abstract screening and full article review, 175 studies were included. The most frequently studied GPPs were laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) (34.9%) and the Biofire® FilmArray® Gastrointestinal Panel (22.3%). The majority of these studies were conducted in the inpatient (37.1%), outpatient (28.0%), and emergency department (ED) (14.0%) settings. The most frequently reported outcomes included diagnostic accuracy (69.7%), organism detection (59%), time to diagnosis (12.6%), and antibiotic changes (8.6%).
conclusionWe identified a paucity of research reporting on proximal and distal outcomes associated with GPP use. Our review highlights the critical need for well-designed studies focusing on downstream clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes to guide meaningful and cost-effective incorporation of GPPs into diagnostic work flows.
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.