ArticleCanadian respiratory journal2018
Impact of Nasopharyngeal FilmArray Respiratory Panel Results on Antimicrobial Decisions in Hospitalized Patients.
Article in Canadian respiratory journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Panels and Syndromic Testing in Clinical Microbiology.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2020Review
- Point-of-care tests for influenza A and B viruses and RSV in emergency departments - indications, impact on patient management and possible gains by syndromic respiratory testing, Capital Region, Denmark, 2018.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2020Article
- Appropriate Use and Future Directions of Molecular Diagnostic Testing.Current infectious disease reports · 2020Review
- Opportunities Revealed for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Clinical Practice with Implementation of a Rapid Respiratory Multiplex Assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether results of the nasopharyngeal FilmArray respiratory panel (NP-FARP) influenced antibiotic decisions. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of nonintensive care unit (ICU) inpatients that had an NP-FARP performed at our institution between June 2013 and June 2014. The inpatient records were reviewed 48 hours after the NP-FARP for the following data: demographic information; NP-FARP, serum procalcitonin, and methicillin-resistant Results: A total of 545 patients were included. There were 143 (26%) patients with positive and 402 (74%) patients with negative NP-FARPs. Comparison of groups A, B, and C between those with a (+) and (-) NP-FARP were as follows: (+) A and (-) A, 28/143 (20%) and 84/402 (21%); (+) B and (-) B, 59/143 (41%) and 147/402 (37%); and (+) C and (-) C, 56/143 (39%) and 171/402 (43%), respectively. We found no statistically significant differences between groups (+) A versus (-) A, (+) B versus (-) B, and (+) C versus (-) C with respect to age, gender, MRSA NS result, procalcitonin result, or concurrent immunosuppression. Conclusion: In non-ICU inpatients, NP-FARP alone or in combination with procalcitonin or MRSA NS did not influence antibiotic decisions during the study period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.