Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36403558›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2023

The Biofire® Filmarray® Pneumonia Plus panel for management of lower respiratory tract infection in mechanically-ventilated patients in the COVID-19 era: a diagnostic and cost-benefit evaluation.

Josep Ferrer, María Ángeles Clari, Estela Giménez, Nieves Carbonell, Ignacio Torres, María Luisa Blasco, Eliseo Albert, David Navarro

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Use of the BIOFIREBMC infectious diseases · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Impact of the microscopic quality of endotracheal aspirates on the performance of the Filmarray® pneumonia plus panel in intensive care unit patients with suspected lower respiratory tract infection.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Molecular techniques v. conventional culture: Should there really be a debate?African journal of thoracic and critical care medicine · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Josep FerrerMicrobiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
María Ángeles ClariMicrobiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
Estela GiménezMicrobiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
Nieves CarbonellMedical Intensive Care Unit, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
Ignacio TorresMicrobiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
María Luisa BlascoMedical Intensive Care Unit, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
Eliseo AlbertMicrobiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
David NavarroMicrobiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain. Electronic address: david.navarro@uv.es.
INCLIVA Health Research Institute · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We assessed the diagnostic performance of the Biofire® Filmarray® Pneumonia Plus panel (FA-PP) compared to standard culture in Intensive Care Unit patients with suspected ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infection in the COVID-19 era. We determined whether its implementation in routine diagnostic algorithms would be cost-beneficial from a hospital perspective. Of 163 specimens, 96 (59%) returned negative results with FA-PP and conventional culture, and 29 specimens (17.8%) were positive with both diagnostic methods and yielded concordant qualitative bacterial identification/isolation. Thirty-nine specimens (23.9%) gave discordant results (positive via FA-PP and negative via culture). Real-life adjustments of empirical antimicrobial therapy (EAT) after FA-PP results resulted in additional costs beyond EAT alone of 1868.7 €. Adequate EAT adjustments upon FA-PP results would have resulted in a saving of 6675.8 €. In conclusion, the data presented supports the potential utility of FA-PP for early EAT adjustment in patients with ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infection.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsCOVID-19Respiratory Tract InfectionsBacteriaCOVID-19 TestingHumansRespiration, ArtificialAnti-Infective AgentsBiofire® Filmarray® Pneumonia PlusCOVID-19Intensive Care UnitLower respiratory tract infection

Identifiers

PMID36403558
PMCPMC9625846
OpenAlexW4308040388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.