ArticlePathology2018
Health service impact of testing for respiratory pathogens using cartridge-based multiplex array versus molecular batch testing.
Article in Pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is increasing demand for access to rapid microbiological testing, with a view to improving clinical outcomes. The possibility of rapid testing has been facilitated by development of cartridge-based random access molecular technologies that are now widely available. Whether the expense of cartridge-based assays is justified in terms of clinical or laboratory cost savings is controversial. This prospective study evaluated the impact of the Biofire FilmArray Respiratory Panel ('FilmArray'), a cartridge-based random access molecular test, compared with standard batched molecular testing using an 'in-house' respiratory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on laboratory and health service outcomes for adult patients at a tertiary-level adult hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Laboratory result turnaround time was significantly reduced with the FilmArray (median 4.4 h) compared to a standard validated in-house respiratory PCR assay (median 21.6 h, p < 0.0001) and there was a significant increase in diagnostic yield with the Filmarray (71/124, 57.3%) compared to in-house PCR (79/200; 39.5%; p = 0.002). Despite improved result turnaround time and increased diagnostic yield from testing, there was no corresponding reduction in hospital length of stay or use of isolation beds. Although cartridge-based molecular testing reduced turnaround time to result for respiratory pathogen testing, it did not impact on health service outcomes such as hospital length of stay. Further work is warranted to determine whether cartridge-based tests at the point of care can improve clinical and health service impacts.
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.