BACKGROUND: The FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis(FA/ME) panel brings benefits in clinical practice, but its diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the DTA of FA/ME for the aetiological diagnostic in patients with suspected central nervous system(CNS) infection.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review with DTA meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42020139285). We searched Embase, Medline (Ovid), and Web of Science from inception until September 1st, 2021. We assessed the study-level risk of bias with the QUADAS-2 tool and applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the synthesised evidence. We included studies that simultaneously measured the reference test (CSF/blood culture for bacteria, and specific polymerase chain reaction for viruses) and the FA/ME in patients with suspected CNS infection. We performed random-effects bivariate meta-analysis models of combined sensitivity and specificity using CSF/blood cultures(reference test 1) and a final diagnosis adjudication based on clinical/laboratory criteria (reference test 2).
RESULTS: We included 19 studies (11,351 participants). For all bacteria with reference test 1 (16 studies/6183 patients) sensitivity was estimated at 89·5% (95%CI 81·1-94·4), and specificity at 97·4% (95%CI 94-98·9). With reference test 2 (15 studies/5,524 patients), sensitivity was estimated at 92·1%(95%CI 86·8-95·3) and specificity at 99.2(95%CI 98·3-99·6) For herpes simplex virus-2(HSV-2), enteroviruses, and Varicella-Zoster virus (VZV), we obtained sensitivities between 75·5 and 93·8%, and specificities above 99% (reference test 1). Certainty of the evidence was low.
CONCLUSIONS: FA/ME may have acceptable-to-high sensitivities and high specificities for identifying bacteria, especially for S.pneumoniae, and viruses, especially for HSV-2, and enteroviruses. Sensitivities for L.monocytogenes, H.influenzae, E.coli, and HSV-1 were suboptimal.
BACKGROUND: None.

BACKGROUND: The FilmArray® meningitis/encephalitis (ME) panel is a multiplex PCR assay which can detect the most commonly identified pathogens in central nervous system infections. It significantly decreases the time to diagnosis of ME and data has yielded several positive outcomes. However, in part, reports of both false positive and false negative detections have resulted in concerns about adoption.
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the ME panel in a diagnostic test accuracy review.
METHODS: The PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched through May 2019.
METHODS: Eligible studies were those providing sensitivity and specificity data for the ME panel compared with a reference standard. Studies providing details on false positive and false negative results of the panel as well as further investigation (adjudication) of the discordant results between the panel and comparator assays were included and assessed separately.
METHODS: Patients with suspected ME for whom a panel was ordered were included.
METHODS: The ME panel was compared to reference standard methods for diagnosing community-acquired ME. We performed a meta-analysis and calculated the summary sensitivity and specificity of the ME panel. Moreover, we evaluated the false positive and false negative results of the panel.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies (3764 patients) were included in the review and 8 of them (3059 patients) were pooled in a meta-analysis. The summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was 90% (95% CI 86-93%) and 97% (95% CI 94-99%), respectively. When we looked specifically at studies that assessed further the false positive and false negative results, false positive detections were 11.4% and 4% before and after adjudication, respectively. The highest proportion of false positive was observed for Streptococcus pneumoniae followed by Streptococcus agalactiae. False negative isolates were 2.2% and 1.5% before and after adjudication, respectively. Herpes simplex virus 1 and 2, enterovirus and Cryptococcus neoformans/gattii had the highest proportions of false negative determinations. False negative C. neoformans/gattii were mostly patients with positive antigen titres, on treatment or cleared disease.
CONCLUSIONS: The currently available literature suggests that the ME panel has high diagnostic accuracy. However, the decision for implementation should be individualized based on the needs of the patient population, the capabilities of the laboratory, and the knowledge of the healthcare providers that will utilize the test.