ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
Bridging the diagnostic gap: the role of culture methods in the era of syndromic panels for central nervous system infections.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Syndromic molecular panels have improved the rapid etiological diagnosis of central nervous system (CNS) infections by enabling the simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens directly from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Their speed and standardization support early clinical decision-making, particularly in emergency and referral settings. However, the closed architecture of these panels limits pathogen coverage and does not allow antimicrobial susceptibility testing, potentially resulting in incomplete diagnostic assessment. A retrospective real-world evaluation of the BioFire Methods: A total of 2,586 CSF samples with paired molecular and culture results were included. Diagnostic concordance, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated using standard statistical methods. Analyses were conducted both on the complete dataset and after restriction to bacterial targets included in the syndromic panel. Results: Overall, there was moderate agreement between syndromic testing and culture (Cohen's kappa = 0.61), with the FilmArray panel showing a specificity of 97.5% and a sensitivity of 64.1%. Restricting the analysis to the bacterial targets included in the panel substantially improved the agreement (κ = 0.74), increasing the sensitivity to 93.5% and giving the test a negative predictive value of 99.7%. Importantly, conventional culture identified clinically relevant pathogens not included in the syndromic panel, including Discussion: Although syndromic molecular panels represent a valuable diagnostic tool for CNS infections, they cannot be used as standalone assays. Optimal diagnostic accuracy requires systematic integration of syndromic testing with conventional culture to ensure comprehensive pathogen detection and appropriate antimicrobial management. These findings support the need for next-generation multiplex platforms with expanded target coverage informed by real-world epidemiology.
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.