SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ANKEM Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 40 Sayı: 1

The Real World Performance of a Syndromic Molecular Diagnostic Panel in Central Nervous System Infections: A Single Center Experience

SANTRAL SİNİR SİSTEMİ ENFEKSİYONLARINDA SENDROMİK MOLEKÜLER TANI PANELİNİN GERÇEK YAŞAM PERFORMANSI: TEK MERKEZ DENEYİMİ

Kübra Fırtına Topcu(SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ, TEMEL TIP BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, TIBBİ MİKROBİYOLOJİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0002-3260-5309
Pages
1–8
Publication Date
2026-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, although syndromic CSF panels offer the potential for rapid pathogen detection, they cannot fully replace conventional culture methods.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Syndromic panels have gained prominence in clinical microbiology laboratories in recent years due to their potential for rapid and reliable identification of pathogens.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aimed to evaluate the distribution of pathogens detected by molecular syndromic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) panels performed between January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2025, in a tertiary care university hospital, together with the clinical characteristics of the patients and the turnaround time between sample receipt and result approval by a specialist.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, although syndromic CSF panels offer the potential for rapid pathogen detection, they cannot fully replace conventional culture methods.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:menenjit · PCR · sendromik tanı

Abstract

Syndromic panels have gained prominence in clinical microbiology laboratories in recent years due to their potential for rapid and reliable identification of pathogens. This study aimed to evaluate the distribution of pathogens detected by molecular syndromic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) panels performed between January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2025, in a tertiary care university hospital, together with the clinical characteristics of the patients and the turnaround time between sample receipt and result approval by a specialist. CSF samples obtained from patients aged 18 years and older were included. The BD MAX™ system was used between 2020 and 2023, while Bosphore series panels from Anatolia Geneworks were used between 2024 and 2025. Clinical and laboratory data were retrieved from the hospital information management system and analyzed using SPSS version 23.0. During the study period, molecular syndromic panel testing was performed on a total of 523 CSF samples, and viral or bacterial pathogens were detected in 28 patients (5.4%). The mean age of the patients was 46.7 ± 19.3 years, and 49.5% were male. The median turnaround time between sample receipt in the laboratory and result approval by a specialist was 22.5 hours. The most frequently detected pathogen was Streptococcus pneumoniae (32.1%), followed by Epstein–Barr virus (21.4%) and herpes simplex virus type 1 (14.3%). Among the 13 patients with bacterial positivity, concordance with CSF culture was observed in six cases (46.2%). Among the 495 patients with negative molecular syndromic CSF panel results, pathogens were detected by conventional culture methods in 41 cases (8.3%), with coagulase-negative staphylococci constituting the majority of isolates. In addition, several clinically significant pathogens not included in the panel spectrum were also identified by culture. In conclusion, although syndromic CSF panels offer the potential for rapid pathogen detection, they cannot fully replace conventional culture methods. However, the combined use of both approaches may support the diagnostic process and contribute to clinical management. The findings of this study highlight the contributions and limitations of syndromic CSF panels under real-world conditions in adult patients.

Özet

Sendromik paneller, son yıllarda etkenleri hızlı ve güvenilir tanımlama potansiyelleri ile klinik mikrobiyoloji laboratuvarlarında öne çıkmıştır. Bu çalışmada, 1 Ocak 2020 – 30 Haziran 2025 tarihleri arasında üçüncü basamak bir üniversite hastanesinde çalışılan moleküler sendromik beyin omurilik sıvısı (BOS) panellerinde saptanan etkenlerin dağılımı, hastaların klinik özellikleri ve örneklerin laboratuvara kabulü ile sonuçların uzman tarafından onaylanması arasındaki sürelerin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmaya, 18 yaş ve üzeri hastalara ait BOS örnekleri dahil edilmiştir. Çalışmada 2020–2023 yıllarında BD MAX™ sistemi, 2024–2025 yıllarında ise Anatolia Geneworks’e ait Bosphore serisi paneller kullanılmıştır. Klinik ve laboratuvar veriler hastane bilgi yönetim sistemi kayıtlarından elde edilerek SPSS v23.0 programı ile analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma süresince toplam 523 BOS örneğinde moleküler sendromik panel testi uygulanmış; 28 farklı hastada (%5.4) viral veya bakteriyel etken saptanmıştır. Hastaların yaş ortalaması 46.7 ± 19.3 yıl olup, olguların %49.5’i erkektir. BOS örneklerinin laboratuvara kabulü ile sonuçların uzman tarafından onaylanması arasındaki medyan süre 22.5 saat olarak bulunmuştur. En sık saptanan etken olan Streptococcus pneumoniae’yı (%32.1) Epstein–Barr virüsü (%21.4) ve Herpes simpleks virüsü tip 1 (%14.3) izlemiştir. Bakteriyel etken pozitifliği saptanan 13 hastanın altısında (%46.2) BOS kültürü ile uyum gözlenmiştir. Moleküler sendromik BOS paneli negatif sonuçlanan 495 hastanın 41’inde (%8.3) konvansiyonel kültür yöntemleri ile etken saptanmış, bu etkenlerin büyük bölümünü koagülaz negatif stafilokoklar oluşturmuştur. Ayrıca panel kapsamı dışında kalan klinik açıdan anlamlı bazı patojenler de kültür ile saptanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, sendromik BOS panelleri hızlı etken saptama potansiyeline sahip olmakla birlikte konvansiyonel kültür yöntemlerinin yerini tamamen alamamaktadır. Bununla birlikte, her iki yöntemin birlikte kullanımı tanısal süreci destekleyerek klinik yönetimde katkı sağlayabilir. Elde edilen veriler, erişkin hastalarda sendromik BOS panellerinin gerçek yaşam koşullarındaki kullanımına ilişkin katkılarını ve sınırlılıklarını ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Topcu, K. F. (2026). The Real World Performance of a Syndromic Molecular Diagnostic Panel in Central Nervous System Infections: A Single Center Experience. ANKEM Dergisi, Cilt: 40 Sayı: 1, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.54962/ankemderg.1823685

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Aksamit AJ, Berkowitz AL. Meningitis. Continuum (N Y). 2021;27(4):836-54.
  2. Altunal LN, Aydın M, Özel AS, Kadanalı A. Seven-year evaluation of central nervous system infections in an education research. Adnan Menderes Üniv Sağlık Bilim Fak Derg. 2021;5(2):170-6.
  3. Altunal LN, Öztürk S, Aydın M, Özel AS, Kadanalı A. Clinical characteristics of 98 cases diagnosed with central nervous system infection. ANKEM Derg. 2021;35(3):77-84.
  4. Ayhan FY, Apa H, Akaslan Kara A ve ark. Rapid diagnosis of central nervous system infections by multiplex PCR assay and the viral etiology in children. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2024;58(4):461-70.
  5. Başpınar EÖ, Dayan S, Bekçibaşı M ve ark. Comparison of culture and PCR methods in the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis. Braz J Microbiol. 2017;48(2):232-6.
  6. Böncüoğlu E, Devrim İ, Kıymet E ve ark. Challenges in interpreting cerebrospinal fluid viral polymerase chain reaction results: understanding the results related to HHV-6, HHV-7, and enterovirus. Dr Behçet Uz Çocuk Hast Derg. 2025;15(1):35-41.
  7. Gomes HR. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis: current diagnostic methods in central nervous system infectious diseases. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2022;80(Suppl 1):290-5.
  8. Gültepe B, Bayram Y, Güdücüoğlu H, Çıkman A, Berktaş M. Investigation of bacterial and viral meningitis agents with different PCR methods at a university hospital. Abant Med J. 2015;4(2):125-9.
  9. Hasanuzzaman M, Saha S, Malaker R ve ark. Comparison of culture, antigen test, and polymerase chain reaction for pneumococcal detection in cerebrospinal fluid of children. J Infect Dis. 2021;224(Suppl 3):S209-17.
  10. He T, Kaplan S, Kamboj M, Tang YW. Laboratory diagnosis of central nervous system infection. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2016;18(11):35.
  11. Hospital Quality Standards, T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı, https://dosyamerkez.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/3531/0/kitaplabpdf.pdf, (erişim tarihi 10.11.2025).
  12. Indicator Management Guide, T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı, https://dosyamerkez.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/40208/0/sks-gosterge-yonetimi-rehberi-04032021-1pdf.pdf, (erişim tarihi 10.11.2025).
  13. Kahraman H, Tünger A, Şenol Ş ve ark. Investigation of bacterial and viral etiology in community-acquired central nervous system infections with molecular methods. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2017;51(3):277-85.
  14. Kalchev Y, Murdjeva M. Current methods for microbiological diagnosis of acute central nervous system infections. Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2022;64(5):709-15.
  15. Kanjilal S, Cho TA, Piantadosi A. Diagnostic testing in central nervous system infection. Semin Neurol. 2019;39(3):297-311.
  16. Kouara S, Elyaacoubi R, Mahmoud M, Yahyaoui G. Interest of multiplex PCR panel FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis in the diagnosis of central nervous system infections. Clin Chim Acta. 2024;558:119218.
  17. Leber AL, Everhart K, Balada-Llasat JM ve ark. Multicenter evaluation of BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel for detection of bacteria, viruses, and yeast in cerebrospinal fluid specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54(9):2251-61.
  18. Liesman RM, Strasburg AP, Heitman AK, Theel ES, Patel R, Binnicker MJ. Evaluation of a commercial multiplex molecular panel for diagnosis of infectious meningitis and encephalitis. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(4):e01927-17.
  19. McGill F, Heyderman RS, Panagiotou S, Tunkel AR, Solomon T. Acute bacterial meningitis in adults. Lancet. 2016;388(10063):3036-47.
  20. Rafiei N, Subedi S, Harris PN, Paterson DL. Clinical and cost implications of BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel testing: a systematic review. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2025;112(3):116823.
  21. Sahin AM, Ugur M. Rational use of molecular methods in the diagnosis of meningitis/encephalitis. Klimik Derg. 2023;36(4):251-5.
  22. Shin YW, Sunwoo JS, Lee HS ve ark. Clinical significance of Epstein-Barr virus polymerase chain reaction in cerebrospinal fluid. Encephalitis. 2022;2(1):1-8.
  23. Tansarli GS, Chapin KC. Diagnostic test accuracy of the BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(3):281-90.
  24. Terzi HA, Aydemir Ö, Karakeçe E. Bacterial and viral investigation of cerebrospinal fluid samples in patients with suspected encephalitis/meningitis in a university hospital. Turk Mikrobiyol Cemiy Derg. 2019.
  25. Trujillo-Gómez J, Tsokani S, Arango-Ferreira C ve ark. BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel for the aetiological diagnosis of central nervous system infections: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;44:101275.
  26. Varıcı Balcı FK, Sayıner AA. A seven-year evaluation of viral central nervous system infections. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2019;53(4):434-41.
  27. Wang Y, Guo G, Wang H ve ark. Comparative study of bacteriological culture and real-time PCR and multiplex PCR-based reverse line blot hybridization assay in the diagnosis of bacterial neonatal meningitis. BMC Pediatr. 2014;14:224.
  28. Zeytinoğlu A, Erensoy S, Sertöz R ve ark. Evaluation of viral etiology in central nervous system infections from a university hospital point of view in Izmir based on seven years data. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2017;51(2):127-35.