Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Point-Counterpoint

Point-Counterpoint: Large Multiplex PCR Panels Should Be First-Line Tests for Detection of Respiratory and Intestinal Pathogens

Paul C. Schreckenberger, Alexander J. McAdam
A. M. Caliendo, Editor
Paul C. Schreckenberger
Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander J. McAdam
Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. M. Caliendo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00382-15
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The first FDA-approved multiplex PCR panel for a large number of respiratory pathogens was introduced in 2008. Since then, other PCR panels for detection of several respiratory and gastrointestinal pathogens have been approved by the FDA and are commercially available, and more such panels are likely to become available. These assays detect 12 to 20 pathogens, and some include pathogens that typically cause different manifestations of infection, although they infect the same organ system. Some of these tests are labor-intensive, while others require little labor, and all of them are expensive, both for the laboratory and for the patient or insurer. They include a bundle of tests with limited or no options for selecting which tests will be performed. Laboratories and hospitals have adopted different strategies for offering these assays. Some have implemented strategies to limit the use of the tests, such as limiting the frequency with which patients can be tested, restricting testing to specific groups of patients (e.g., immunocompromised patients), or providing education to encourage the use of less expensive tests before using large multiplex panels. Others have offered these assays without limiting their use, either relying on the ordering provider to exercise good judgment or because such assays are thought to be appropriate for first-line diagnostic testing. In this Point-Counterpoint, Paul Schreckenberger of Loyola University Medical Center explains why his laboratory offers these assays without restriction. Alex McAdam of Boston's Children Hospital explains the concerns about the use of these assays as first-line tests and why some limitations on their use might be appropriate.

The views expressed in this feature do not necessarily represent the views of the journal or of ASM.

  • Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Point-Counterpoint: Large Multiplex PCR Panels Should Be First-Line Tests for Detection of Respiratory and Intestinal Pathogens
Paul C. Schreckenberger, Alexander J. McAdam
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Sep 2015, 53 (10) 3110-3115; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00382-15

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Point-Counterpoint: Large Multiplex PCR Panels Should Be First-Line Tests for Detection of Respiratory and Intestinal Pathogens
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
Share
Point-Counterpoint: Large Multiplex PCR Panels Should Be First-Line Tests for Detection of Respiratory and Intestinal Pathogens
Paul C. Schreckenberger, Alexander J. McAdam
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Sep 2015, 53 (10) 3110-3115; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00382-15
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • POINT
    • COUNTERPOINT
    • SUMMARY
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • REFERENCES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X