2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2020.105865
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of a commercial multiplex PCR for diagnosis of central nervous system (CNS) nosocomial infections

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…All studies used an acceptable reference standard, collected the specimen for both index and reference testing at the same time, used the same reference standard for all patients, and avoided a case‒control study design. In summary, three studies were labelled ‘unclear’ for patient selection [29, 37, 46–48], two studies were labelled ‘high-risk’ for index tests [36, 46], three studies were labelled ‘unclear’ for index tests [29, 38, 49], three studies were labelled ‘unclear’ for reference standards [29, 50, 51], two studies were labelled ‘high-risk’ for flow and timing [29, 48, 52] and six studies were labelled ‘unclear’ for flow and timing [37, 46, 49, 51, 53–55]. Overall, all of the studies had low concern regarding applicability.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…All studies used an acceptable reference standard, collected the specimen for both index and reference testing at the same time, used the same reference standard for all patients, and avoided a case‒control study design. In summary, three studies were labelled ‘unclear’ for patient selection [29, 37, 46–48], two studies were labelled ‘high-risk’ for index tests [36, 46], three studies were labelled ‘unclear’ for index tests [29, 38, 49], three studies were labelled ‘unclear’ for reference standards [29, 50, 51], two studies were labelled ‘high-risk’ for flow and timing [29, 48, 52] and six studies were labelled ‘unclear’ for flow and timing [37, 46, 49, 51, 53–55]. Overall, all of the studies had low concern regarding applicability.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…FP, false positive; TP, true positive; Table 1. Continued [29,37,[46][47][48], two studies were labelled 'high-risk' for index tests [36,46], three studies were labelled 'unclear' for index tests [29,38,49], three studies were labelled 'unclear' for reference standards [29,50,51], two studies were labelled 'high-risk' for flow and timing [29,48,52] and six studies were labelled 'unclear' for flow and timing [37,46,49,51,[53][54][55]. Overall, all of the studies had low concern regarding applicability.…”
Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…73 A recent study analyzed CSF samples of patients with CNS infections using the BCID panel and reported promising results. 74 Ninety CSF samples were analyzed with the BCID panel achieving a sensitivity of 77.4% and specificity of 100%, while the use of lower cut-offs, improved the sensitivity to 83.9% without any significant impact on a specificity that remained high (98.3%). 74 The turnaround time of both ME and BCID panels is much faster than conventional cultures, approximately 1 hour.…”
Section: Dovepressmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…74 Ninety CSF samples were analyzed with the BCID panel achieving a sensitivity of 77.4% and specificity of 100%, while the use of lower cut-offs, improved the sensitivity to 83.9% without any significant impact on a specificity that remained high (98.3%). 74 The turnaround time of both ME and BCID panels is much faster than conventional cultures, approximately 1 hour. 72,73 An alternative technique for the molecular identification of the pathogen is to process an aliquot of a positive CSF culture into a micro/nanofluidic chip platform that contains many genetic targets, species-specific or resistance determinants.…”
Section: Dovepressmentioning
confidence: 99%