Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33447631›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2021

Performance of a Semiquantitative Multiplex Bacterial and Viral PCR Panel Compared With Standard Microbiological Laboratory Results: 396 Patients Studied With the BioFire Pneumonia Panel.

Kenneth H Rand, Stacy G Beal, Kartikeya Cherabuddi, Brianne Couturier, Beth Lingenfelter, Cory Rindlisbacher, Jay Jones, Herbert J Houck, Kylie J Lessard, Elizabeth E Tremblay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kenneth H RandDepartment of Pathology, Immunology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3883-6180
Stacy G BealDepartment of Pathology, Immunology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Kartikeya CherabuddiDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7390-9053
Brianne CouturierBioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Beth LingenfelterBioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Cory RindlisbacherBioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Jay JonesBioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Herbert J HouckDepartment of Pathology, Immunology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Kylie J LessardDepartment of Infection Prevention and Control, UF Health Shands Hospital, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Elizabeth E TremblayDepartment of Infection Prevention and Control, UF Health Shands Hospital, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
BioFire Diagnostics (United States) · USUniversity of Florida · USFlorida State University · USUF Health Shands Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicrobiologic results are critical to optimal management of patients with lower respiratory tract infection, but standard methods may take several days. The multiplex polymerase chain reaction BioFire Pneumonia (PN) panel detects 15 common bacterial species semiquantitatively as copy number/mL, 8 viral species, and 7 resistance genes in about an hour within the clinical laboratory.

methodsWe tested 396 unique endotracheal or bronchoalveolar lavage specimens with the BioFire Pneumonia panel and compared the bacterial detections to conventional gram stain and culture results.

resultsOf the 396 patients, 138 grew at least 1 bacterium that had a target on the PN panel, and 136/138 (98.6%) were detected by the panel. A total of 177 isolates were recovered in culture and the PN panel detected 174/177 (98.3%). A further 20% of patients had additional targets detected that were not found on standard culture (specificity 69%, positive predictive value 63%, and negative predictive value 98.9%). Copy number was strongly related to standard semiquantitative growth on plates reported by the laboratory (eg, 1+, 2+, 3+ growths) and was significantly higher in those specimens that grew a potential pathogen. Both higher copy number and bacterial detections found by the PN panel, but not found in culture, were strongly positively related to the level of white blood cells reported in the initial gram stain.

conclusionsHigher copy number and bacterial detections by the PN panel are related to the host respiratory tract inflammatory response. If laboratories can achieve a rapid turnaround time, the PN panel should have a significant impact both on patient management and on antibiotic stewardship.

Indexed as

BioFire Pneumonia panelgram stain white blood cellsmultiplex bacterial PCRstandard clinical microbiology

Identifiers

PMID33447631
PMCPMC7793460
OpenAlexW3110385865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.