Cited by 51Bacterial Infections and VaccinesBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingNeonatal and Maternal Infections

Molecular diagnostic assays for the detection of common bacterial meningitis pathogens: A narrative review

Open access
Diallo, Kanny, Feteh, Vitalis F., Ibe, Lilian, Antonio, Martin, Caugant, Dominique A., du Plessis, Mignon, Deghmane, Ala-Eddine, Feavers, Ian M. +9 more·2021·EBioMedicine

Abstract

Bacterial meningitis is a major global cause of morbidity and mortality. Rapid identification of the aetiological agent of meningitis is essential for clinical and public health management and disease prevention given the wide range of pathogens that cause the clinical syndrome and the availability of vaccines that protect against some, but not all, of these. Since microbiological culture is complex, slow, and often impacted by prior antimicrobial treatment of the patient, molecular diagnostic assays have been developed for bacterial detection. Distinguishing between meningitis caused by Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcus), Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae, and Streptococcus agalactiae and identifying their polysaccharide capsules is especially important. Here, we review methods used in the identification of these bacteria, providing an up-to-date account of available assays, allowing clinicians and diagnostic laboratories to make informed decisions about which assays to use.

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 · 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103274

Cites

89 of 89 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

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?

  • LAMP and NASBA have been studied in various CNS infections and might especially be useful in laboratories with limited resources.

    “LAMP and NASBA have been studied in various CNS infections and might especially be useful in laboratories with limited resources (26–31).”

    From Molecular diagnostics in cerebrospinal fluid for the diagnosis of central nervous system infections (2024) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Introduction’s LAMP section describes assays studied for several bacterial meningitis pathogens and says their limited equipment requirements make them appealing to laboratories with limited resources. It does not address NASBA, so the claim about that method is unsupported by this source; the review also does not establish use across CNS infections beyond bacterial meningitis. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Diallo, K., Feteh, V. F., Ibe, L., Antonio, M., Caugant, D. A., du Plessis, M., Deghmane, A.-E., Feavers, I. M., Fernandez, K., Fox, L. M., Rodrigues, C. M. C., Ronveaux, O., Taha, M.-K., Wang, X., Brueggemann, A. B., Maiden, M. C. J., & Harrison, O. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
  • Institut Pasteur (FR)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Harrison, Odile B.
Venue
EBioMedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
65
Pages
103274
ISSN
2352-3964 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3130451557
Cited by
51
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EBioMedicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • National Institute for Health Research (PR-OD-1017\u201320007, PR-OD-1017, 20007)
  • ABB
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Neonatal and Maternal Infections
Keywords
bacterial meningitis, molecular diagnostic assays, Neisseria meningitidis, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus agalactiae, rapid bacterial detection
MeSH terms
DNA, Bacterial, Haemophilus influenzae, Humans, Latex Fixation Tests, Neisseria meningitidis, Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Meningitis, Bacterial, Point-of-Care Systems, Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques

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