ArticleHeliyon2022
Performance of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- High False-Positivity Rates of Widal Rapid Diagnostic Tests Compared to the Quantitative Tube Method for Salmonella typhi Detection in the Northern Region of Ghana.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Article
- When might we consider using the newer β-lactam agents as empirical therapy against presumed carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infections?JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- 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 · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of the Biofire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) for Bloodstream Infections in Limpopo, South Africa.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- BacT-Seq, a Nanopore-Based Whole-Genome Sequencing Workflow Prototype for Rapid and Accurate Pathogen Identification and Resistance Prediction from Positive Blood Cultures: A Feasibility Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- [Efficiency and Usefulness of the Molecular Test 'BiofireAnnals of burns and fire disasters · 2025Article
- Observational
- Comparative Assessment of Rapid Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods for Bloodstream Infections in a Non-24/7 Clinical Microbiology Laboratory.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Getting Up to Speed: Rapid Pathogen and Antimicrobial Resistance Diagnostics in Sepsis.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Guidelines for Antibiotics Prescription in Critically Ill Patients.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Rapid Direct Identification of Microbial Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in Positive Blood Cultures Using a Fully Automated Multiplex PCR Assay.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Clinical Utility of Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel in Flagged Blood Culture Samples from the Intensive Care Unit of a Tertiary Care Hospital.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Assessing the Interpretation of Molecular Test Results in the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The impact of the BIOFIREEuropean journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the effect of BioFire FilmArray nested multiplex polymerase chain reaction method on rapid pathogen identification and antimicrobial stewardship in sepsis.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Observational
- [Evaluation of two phenotypic techniques and a commercial multiplex molecular panel for the detection of different carbapenemases].Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2023Article
- Microbiological Assessment of the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel: Potential Impact in Critically Ill Patients.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- 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
- Influence of Multiplex PCR in the Management of Antibiotic Treatment in Patients with Bacteremia.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conventional blood cultures methods are associated with long turnaround times, preventing early treatment optimization in bloodstream infections. The BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) Panel is a new multiplex PCR applied on positive blood cultures, reducing time to pathogen identification and resistant markers detection. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study including positive blood cultures from Intensive Care Units and Emergency Departments and performed BCID2 in addition to conventional testing. Concordance between the two methods was assessed and BCID2 performance characteristics were evaluated. Resistance markers detected by BCID2 were confirmed by in-house PCR. Whole genome sequencing was performed in discordant cases. Results: Among 60 monomicrobial blood cultures, BCID2 correctly identified 55/56 (91.7%) on-panel pathogens, showing an overall concordance of 98%. In 4/60 cases BCID2 did not detect any target and these all grew BCID2 off-panel bacteria. Only one discordant case was found. Sensitivity and specificity for Gram-positive bacteria on monomicrobial samples were 100% (95% CI 85.8-100%) and 100% (95% CI 90.3-100%) respectively, while for Gram-negatives 100% (95% CI 87.7-100) and 96.9% (95% CI 83.8-99.9%), respectively. Among two polymicrobial blood cultures, full concordance was observed in one case only. BCID2 identified antimicrobial resistance genes in 6/62 samples, all confirmed by in-house PCR (3 Conclusions: BCID2 showed good agreement with conventional methods. Studies to assess its clinical impact are warranted.
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.