Cepheid Logo
Request Info
Location / Language

{{headingText}}

{{paragraphText}}

{{continueBtnLabel}}
{{initials}}
Main Menu
Location / Language

{{headingText}}

{{paragraphText}}

{{continueBtnLabel}}

Request Info
Request Info
GI Panel
Cepheid

Cepheid

Editorial Team

6m Read

October 22, 2026

COMMUNITY AND GLOBAL HEALTH

Publication

Does detecting more pathogens always lead to better clinical insights?

PUBLICATION AT A GLANCE

Title: Comparison of Target Detection Rates of Broad Multiplex Gastrointestinal PCR Panels to Inform Utilization of a Midplex Panel Approach: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors: Chase J, Devani D, Manning B, Manning B, Mohandas A, Schulz L, Goss TF, Hata J, Ren P.

Journal: Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine

Reference and Link: J Appl Lab Med. 2026 Aug 25:jfag132. doi: 10.1093/jalm/jfag132

Publication Date: 25 August 2026

Study Type: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical Area: Gastrointestinal infections

 

PUBLICATION HIGHLIGHT

Background

Multiplex gastrointestinal panels (GIPs) enable rapid detection of pathogens in patients with suspected infectious gastroenteritis (IG). Larger panels (22- and 15-target) increase detection rates but often identify colonizing or non-etiological organisms (e.g., C. difficile, EPEC, EAEC, ETEC), leading to diagnostic uncertainty, overtreatment, and higher costs. Clinical guidelines now favor targeted testing for improved relevance and stewardship.

 

Study Design

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 studies evaluated detection rates for 22- and 15-target GI PCR panels in patients with suspected infectious gastroenteritis. Using pooled positivity data, we simulated performance for a proposed 11-target panel focused on most consistently relevant pathogens. Adjustments for co-detection were applied to reflect real-world diagnostic yield. This approach demonstrates how a targeted panel can maintain actionable results while reducing unnecessary findings that drive overtreatment and added costs.1,2,3

 

Key Takeaways

1. Balanced Detection

  • Larger panels (22t, 15t) deliver high positivity rates but often include non-actionable organisms, creating diagnostic uncertainty.
  • A focused 11-target (11t) panel retains up to 57% of clinically relevant detections while reducing unnecessary findings that drive overtreatment and cost.
     

2. Reduced Co-Detection for Clearer Results

  • Broad panels frequently co-detect colonizers like C. difficile and E. coli pathotypes.
  • The 11t panel excludes these targets, which may help reduce co-detection and improve interpretation.
     

3. Clinically Actionable and Guideline-Supported

  • Designed to prioritize pathogens with real impact on patient management.
  • Supports IDSA and ASM recommendations for targeted multiplex testing, promoting antimicrobial stewardship and cost efficiency.
GI Investigation Diagnostic Algorithm Example

Insights

1. Improved Diagnostic Stewardship
Broad multiplex panels can detect organisms that do not correlate with true infection, which may contribute to diagnostic uncertainty, unnecessary antibiotic use, and added costs. A panel designed with fewer, actionable targets, may reduce risk of identifying colonizers and organisms which unnecessarily complicate the clinical diagnosis, thereby supporting evidence-based treatment decisions and antimicrobial stewardship goals.


2. Clinical Relevance Over Volume
High positivity rates from large panels can be misleading when driven by colonizers like C. difficile or E. coli pathotypes. Narrowing the number of targets may help reduce co-detection and equivocal results, while ensuring excellent patient care.


3. Guideline Alignment and Cost Efficiency
IDSA and ASM recommendations support thoughtful, targeted test selection based on clinical context and diagnostic stewardship principles. A streamlined multiplex approach may support diagnostic stewardship and more appropriate resource utilization.


4. Operational Advantages
Simpler interpretation has the potential for faster decision-making for clinicians, fewer unnecessary isolation measures, and reduced downstream testing. For hospitals, this can translate into improved workflow efficiency and measurable cost savings.


Conclusion

Simulated performance data for a proposed 11-target multiplex GI panel suggests it may retain clinically actionable yield while reducing detection of colonizing organisms. This approach may support diagnostic stewardship, align with guidelines, and help control costs.

 

Want to learn more?

Read the Publication

Disclaimer: The content presented on this page is intended for informational and educational purposes. While it is available globally, it may reflect clinical practices or healthcare system considerations specific to a particular region.

 

References:


Chase J, Devani D, Manning B, Mohandas A, Schulz L, Goss TF, Hata DJ, Ren P. Comparison of Target Detection Rates of Broad Multiplex Gastrointestinal PCR Panels to Inform Utilization of a Midplex Panel Approach: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. J Appl Lab Med. 2026 Aug 25:jfag132. doi: 10.1093/jalm/jfag132. 

  1. 22-target panel: Campylobacter spp., Clostridium difficile, Plesiomonas shigelloides, Salmonella spp., Yersinia enterocolitica, Vibrio spp., Vibrio cholerae, E. coli O157, Enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC), Enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC), Enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), Shigella/Enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC), Adenovirus, Astrovirus, Norovirus, Rotavirus, Sapovirus, Cryptosporidium spp., Cyclospora cayetanensis, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia
  2. 15-target panel: Campylobacter spp., Clostridium difficile, Salmonella spp., Yersinia enterocolitica, Vibrio cholerae, E. coli O157, Enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), Shiga toxin producing E. coli (STEC), Shigella/Enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC), Adenovirus, Norovirus, Rotavirus, Cryptosporidium spp., Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia
  3. 11-target panel: Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., Yersinia enterocolitica, Vibrio spp., Vibrio cholerae, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), Shigella/Enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC), Norovirus, Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia lamblia
Was this article helpful?

Read Next

MORE