Observational studyCurrent microbiology2022
The Impact of Fast Microbiology in Intensive Care Units in the Era of Antibiotic Resistance: An Observational Retrospective Study.
Observational study in Current microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Practical Impact of Fast Microbiology on the Treatment of Bloodstream Infections: Real-World Evidence from a High-Complexity Infectious Disease Center.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- BioFireAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Empirical decision-making for antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients.BJA education · 2023Review
- Clinical Impact of the BIOFIRE Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel in Adult Patients with Bloodstream Infection: A Multicentre Observational Study in the United Arab Emirates.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Meropenem/Vaborbactam and Cefiderocol as Combination or Monotherapy to Treat Multi-Drug Resistant Gram-Negative Infections: A Regional Cross-Sectional Survey from Piedmont Infectious Disease Unit Network (PIDUN).Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Article
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
The increasing prevalence of multi-drug-resistant bacteria responsible for bloodstream infections (BSIs) makes therapeutic choices progressively more complex. Fast microbiology quickly detects the presence of pathogens and clinically relevant determinants of antibiotic resistance, offering the potential for early administration of antibiotics. In this retrospective observational study, we comparatively evaluated the performances of FilmArray and the current standard method using blood samples collected from intensive care unit (ICU) patients with suspected BSI. A full agreement with the standard was observed in 97/102 samples (95.1 ± 4.2%), a mismatch in 3/102 samples (2.9 ± 3.2%) and detection failure in 2/102 cases (1.96 ± 2.7%). Statistical analysis demonstrated a near-perfect/perfect level of agreement between the two methods, with an overall degree of agreement of 95%. The high performance demonstrated by the FilmArray could allow a "watch and wait" approach helping clinicians in decision-making processes related to choice and initiation of the antimicrobial therapy, thus avoiding ineffective and excessive use of drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35099610What 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.