Cited by 81Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingBacterial Infections and VaccinesInfectious Encephalopathies and Encephalitis

Laboratory diagnosis of central nervous system infection

Open access
He, Taojun, Kaplan, Samuel, Kamboj, Mini, Tang, Yi-Wei·2016·Current Infectious Disease Reports

Abstract

Central nervous system (CNS) infections are potentially life threatening if not diagnosed and treated early. The initial clinical presentations of many CNS infections are non-specific, making a definitive etiologic diagnosis challenging. Nucleic acid in vitro amplification-based molecular methods are increasingly being applied for routine microbial detection. These methods are a vast improvement over conventional techniques with the advantage of rapid turnaround and higher sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, molecular methods performed on cerebrospinal fluid samples are considered the new gold standard for diagnosis of CNS infection caused by pathogens, which are otherwise difficult to detect. Commercial diagnostic platforms offer various monoplex and multiplex PCR assays for convenient testing of targets that cause similar clinical illness. Pan-omic molecular platforms possess potential for use in this area. Although molecular methods are predicted to be widely used in diagnosing and monitoring CNS infections, results generated by these methods need to be carefully interpreted in combination with clinical findings. This review summarizes the currently available armamentarium of molecular assays for diagnosis of central nervous system infections, their application, and future approaches.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11908-016-0545-6

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
He, T., Kaplan, S., Kamboj, M., & Tang, Y.-W.
Affiliations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Tang, Yi-Wei
Venue
Current Infectious Disease Reports
Published
2016-09-30
Volume
18
Issue
11
Pages
35-35
ISSN
  • 1523-3847 (ISSN-L)
  • 1534-3146
OpenAlex
W2526342569
Cited by
81
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Infectious Disease Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infectious Encephalopathies and Encephalitis
Keywords
central nervous system infection, cerebrospinal fluid, molecular diagnosis, nucleic acid amplification, PCR testing, multiplex PCR, etiological diagnosis, meningitis, encephalitis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review