ReviewMicrobiologyOpen2026
Diagnostic Performance of the QIAstat-Dx Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel: Insights From Seven Clinical Evaluations.
Review in MicrobiologyOpen, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Central nervous system (CNS) infections require prompt and accurate diagnosis to enable timely and targeted antimicrobial therapy. Syndromic PCR-based assays, such as the QIAstat-Dx Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel (QIA-ME), allow rapid detection of key pathogens directly from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). We conducted a narrative review of seven studies (2023-2025) evaluating the diagnostic performance of QIA-ME. A total of 1007 clinical CSF samples, ranging from 5 to 585, were retrospectively analyzed, with 8 to 14 targets assessed per study. Positive percent agreement (PPA) ranged from 90.6% to 100%, while negative percent agreement (NPA)-available in only three studies-ranged from 75.0% to 97.7%. In three studies, head-to-head comparisons with the BioFire FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel (FA-ME) revealed minimal variation in performance, reinforcing the robustness of QIA-ME. However, target-specific limitations were noted, particularly for herpesviruses such as HSV-1. Methodological heterogeneity across studies-in terms of design, comparator methods, and sample size-limits generalizability. The exclusion of cytomegalovirus and inclusion of Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes in the QIA-ME panel raise concerns about the clinical utility of low-prevalence targets, especially as M. pneumoniae was not detected in any clinical sample. Despite these limitations, the integration of amplification curve analysis and the strong concordance with FA-ME support QIA-ME as a valuable tool for CNS infection diagnostics. Prospective real-world studies are warranted to clarify the clinical value of individual targets and guide appropriate use across varied patient settings.
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.