ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2019
Antimicrobial Stewardship Opportunities in Patients with Bacteremia Not Identified by BioFire FilmArray.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel (BCID2) for the detection of bloodstream pathogens and their associated resistance markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluating chain-of-thought prompting in a GPT chatbot for BCID2 interpretation and stewardship: how does AI compare to human experts?Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Test Performance and Potential Clinical Utility of the GenMark Dx ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram-Negative Panel.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Performance of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections.Heliyon · 2022Article
- Direct Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry Testing from Positive Blood Cultures for Rapid Identification of Bloodstream Infection-Causing Anaerobic Bacteria.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Comparing BioFire FilmArray BCID2 and BCID Panels for Direct Detection of Bacterial Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes from Positive Blood Cultures.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Clinical Performance of the Novel GenMark Dx ePlex Blood Culture ID Gram-Positive Panel.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A subset of bacteremia cases are caused by organisms not detected by a rapid-diagnostics platform, BioFire blood culture identification (BCID), with unknown clinical characteristics and outcomes. Patients with ≥1 positive blood culture over a 15-month period were grouped by negative (NB-PC) versus positive (PB-PC) BioFire BCID results and compared with respect to demographics, infection characteristics, antibiotic therapy, and outcomes (length of hospital stay [LOS] and in-hospital mortality). Six percent of 1,044 positive blood cultures were NB-PC. The overall mean age was 65 ± 22 years, 54% of the patients were male, and most were admitted from home; fewer NB-PC had diabetes (19% versus 31%,
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.