Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33655440›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2021

Multinational evaluation of the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia plus Panel as compared to standard of care testing.

Christine C Ginocchio, Carolina Garcia-Mondragon, Barbara Mauerhofer, Cory Rindlisbacher, and the EME Evaluation Program Collaborative

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Rapid commercial CTX-M diagnostics: Performance, limitations and clinical impact.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Use of the BIOFIREBMC infectious diseases · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christine C GinocchioBioFire Diagnostics, LLC, 515 Colorow Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA. christine.ginocchio@biomerieux.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8200-0324
Carolina Garcia-MondragonbioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France.
Barbara MauerhoferbioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France.
Cory RindlisbacherBioFire Diagnostics, LLC, 515 Colorow Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA.
and the EME Evaluation Program Collaborative
bioMérieux (France) · FRbioMérieux (United States) · USColor (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compared standard of care testing (SOC) to BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia plus Panel (PNplus). PNplus detects 15 bacteria with semiquantitative log bin values, 7 antibiotic resistance markers, three atypical bacteria (AB), and eight viral classes directly from bronchoalveolar lavage-like specimens (BLS) and sputum-like specimens (SLS). Fifty-two laboratories from 13 European countries and Israel tested 1234 BLS and 1242 SLS with PNplus and SOC. Detection rates and number of pathogens/samples were compared for PNplus pathogens. PNplus bin values and SOC quantities were compared. Three thousand two hundred sixty-two bacteria in PNplus were detected by PNplus and/or SOC. SOC detected 57.1% compared to 95.8% for PNplus (p ≤ 0.0001). PNplus semiquantitative bin values were less than SOC, equal to SOC, or greater than SOC in 5.1%, 25.4%, and 69.6% of results, respectively. PNplus bin values were on average ≥ 1 log than SOC values (58.5% 1-2 logs; 11.0% 3-4 logs). PNplus identified 98.2% of MRSA and SOC 55.6%. SOC detected 73/103 AB (70.9%) and 134/631 viruses (21.2%). PNplus detected 93/103 AB (90.3%) and 618/631 viruses (97.9%) (p ≤ 0.0001). PNplus and SOC mean number of pathogens/samples were 1.99 and 1.44, respectively. All gram-negative resistance markers were detected. PNplus and SOC results were fully or partially concordant for 49.1% and 26.4% of specimens, respectively. PNplus was highly sensitive and detected more potential pneumonia pathogens than SOC. Semiquantification may assist in understanding pathogen significance. As PNplus generates results in approximately 1 h, PNplus has potential to direct antimicrobial therapy in near real time and improve antimicrobial stewardship and patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Standard of CareAnti-Infective AgentsBacteriaEuropeHumansIsraelMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPneumoniaVirusesAnti-Infective AgentsBioFire Pneumonia plus PanelCAPDiagnosisHAPPneumoniaVAP

Identifiers

PMID33655440
PMCPMC7924818
OpenAlexW3134968546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.