ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Large-Scale Clinical Evaluation of Rapid Blood Culture Identification Panels for Bloodstream Infections at a Tertiary Hospital.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Syndromic Molecular Assays into Routine Diagnostic Microbiology: Benefits and Challenges.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Laboratory detection of carbapenemases among Gram-negative organisms.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Review
- The Impact of the Rapid Blood Culture Identification Panel on Antibiotic Treatment and Clinical Outcomes in Bloodstream Infections, Particularly Those Associated with Multidrug-Resistant Micro-Organisms.Diagnostics (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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prompt implementation of optimal antibacterial therapy through the rapid identification of the causative organisms is essential for improving outcomes for critically ill patients with bloodstream infections. We evaluated the clinical performance of the FilmArray blood culture identification (BCID) panel for rapidly identifying causative pathogens in the bloodstream using large-scale clinical samples. We analyzed the results of identification using a BCID panel performed on 2005 positive blood culture bottles from September 2019 to June 2022. Pathogen detection efficiency and interval from Gram staining to identification using the BCID panel were compared to those of conventional identification systems-VITEK MS MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometer and Vitek2-and antibiotic susceptibility testing-Vitek2. We detected 2167 isolates from 2005 positive blood culture bottles. In these isolates, the BCID panel showed 93% full agreement-both organisms and antimicrobial resistance genes were matched, and no off-target organisms were detected. Species-level discordance was found in 0.6% of tests. Sixty-five isolates (3.0%) were only detected by BCID, whereas 22 isolates (1.0%) from the on-target panel were not detected by BCID. This large-scale study demonstrated that the BCID panel was a reliable and rapid identification method for directly identifying bloodstream pathogens in a positive blood culture.
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.