Cited by 16Bacterial Infections and VaccinesBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingInfectious Encephalopathies and Encephalitis

Clinical and cost implications of Biofire FilmArray® meningitis/encephalitis panel testing: a systematic review

Open access
Rafiei, Nastaran, Subedi, Shradha, Harris, Patrick NA, Paterson, David L·2025·Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease

Abstract

Background Meningitis and encephalitis are diseases with high case fatality rates and serious long-term sequalae. A significant percentage do not receive an aetiological diagnosis, in part due to limitations of conventional testing methods. The Biofire FilmArray® Meningitis / Encephalitis Panel (MEP) is the first commercially approved multiplex PCR panel for diagnosis of infectious meningoencephalitis. It provides rapid results and has the potential to reduce empiric antimicrobial use and length of hospitalisation when compared to conventional testing. Methods We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the impact of MEP implementation by searching the Medline and Embase databases. The outcomes of interest were duration of acyclovir treatment, duration of antimicrobials, length of stay and healthcare cost. Results A total of 23 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were retrospective studies comparing cohorts before and after MEP implementation. The included studies were very heterogenous, with variation in MEP implementation strategies, standard of care diagnostics and study populations. MEP testing resulted in reduction in acyclovir use in 75 % of studies with an average reduction of 39 h (range 11-144 h). Antimicrobial use and length of stay was reduced in 44 % and 40 % of studies respectively. Five studies looked at healthcare costs, variably described between studies as hospitalisation, antimicrobial and microbiology costs. Total hospitalisatio…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2025.116823

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rafiei, N., Subedi, S., Harris, P. N., & Paterson, D. L.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Rafiei, Nastaran
Venue
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-07
Volume
112
Issue
3
Pages
116823
ISSN
0732-8893 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408735379
Cited by
13
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 13
FWCI
1.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • GlaxoSmithKline Australia
  • bioMérieux
  • Metro North Hospital and Health Service
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infectious Encephalopathies and Encephalitis
Keywords
multiplex PCR, viral meningitis, encephalitis, etiological diagnosis, antimicrobial use, length of hospital stay, health care costs, empiric antimicrobial therapy
MeSH terms
Acyclovir, Encephalitis, Humans, Length of Stay, Meningitis, Health Care Costs, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction

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