Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35534867›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2022

Diagnostic concordance between BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia Panel and culture in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to intensive care units: the experience of the third wave in eight hospitals in Colombia.

Francisco José Molina, Luz Elena Botero, Juan Pablo Isaza, Luz Elena Cano, Lucelly López, Leidy Tamayo, Antoni Torres

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Severe community-acquired pneumonia.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2022
    Review
  19. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Francisco José MolinaEscuela de Ciencias de La Salud, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia. francisco.molina@upb.edu.co.
Luz Elena BoteroEscuela de Ciencias de La Salud, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia.
Juan Pablo IsazaEscuela de Ciencias de La Salud, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia.
Luz Elena CanoEscuela de Ciencias de La Salud, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia.
Lucelly LópezEscuela de Ciencias de La Salud, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia.
Leidy TamayoEscuela de Ciencias de La Salud, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia.
Antoni TorresMedicine (Pulmonology), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana · COCorporación para Investigaciones Biológicas · COHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ES

Funding

Minciencias,Colombia 121084468048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe detection of coinfections is important to initiate appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Molecular diagnostic testing identifies pathogens at a greater rate than conventional microbiology. We assessed both bacterial coinfections identified via culture or the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia Panel (FA-PNEU) in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the ICU and the concordance between these techniques.

methodsThis was a prospective study of patients with SARS-CoV-2 who were hospitalized for no more than 48 h and on mechanical ventilation for no longer than 24 h in 8 ICUs in Medellín, Colombia. We studied mini-bronchoalveolar lavage or endotracheal aspirate samples processed via conventional culture and the FA-PNEU. Coinfection was defined as the identification of a respiratory pathogen using the FA-PNEU or cultures. Serum samples of leukocytes, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin were taken on the first day of intubation. We analyzed the empirical antibiotics and the changes in antibiotic management according to the results of the FA-PNEUM and cultures.

resultsOf 110 patients whose samples underwent both methods, FA-PNEU- and culture-positive samples comprised 24.54% versus 17.27%, respectively. Eighteen samples were positive in both techniques, 82 were negative, 1 was culture-positive with a negative FA-PNEU result, and 9 were FA-PNEU-positive with negative culture. The two bacteria most frequently detected by the FA-PNEU were Staphylococcus aureus (37.5%) and Streptococcus agalactiae (20%), and those detected by culture were Staphylococcus aureus (34.78%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (26.08%). The overall concordance was 90.1%, and when stratified by microorganism, it was between 92.7 and 100%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was between 50 and 100% and were lower for Enterobacter cloacae and Staphylococcus aureus. The negative predictive value (NPV) was high (between 99.1 and 100%); MecA/C/MREJ had a specificity of 94.55% and an NPV of 100%. The inflammatory response tests showed no significant differences between patients whose samples were positive and negative for both techniques. Sixty-one patients (55.45%) received at least one dose of empirical antibiotics.

conclusionsThe overall concordance was 90.1%, and it was between 92.7% and 100% when stratified by microorganisms. The positive predictive value was between 50 and 100%, with a very high NPV.

Indexed as

CoinfectionCOVID-19PneumoniaAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaColombiaHospitalsHumansIntensive Care UnitsMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Anti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial coinfectionBacterial pneumoniaCOVID-19FilmArrayIntensive care units

Identifiers

PMID35534867
PMCPMC9084542
OpenAlexW4229457835

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.