Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38834891›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2024

Multiplex microarray PCR Unyvero BCU system to accelerate relevant antimicrobial treatment in polymicrobial bloodstream infection.

C Bonnefoy, M Vannini, N Degand, A Gaudart, R Lotte, C Buisson-Touati, R Ruimy, B Lamy

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
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.

C BonnefoyLaboratoire de Bactériologie, Hôpital l'Archet, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Nice, France.
M VanniniLaboratoire de Bactériologie, Hôpital l'Archet, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Nice, France.
N DegandLaboratoire de Bactériologie, Hôpital l'Archet, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Nice, France.
A GaudartLaboratoire de Bactériologie, Hôpital l'Archet, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Nice, France.
R LotteUniversité Côte d'Azur, CHU, INSERM, C3M, Nice, France.
C Buisson-TouatiLaboratoire de Bactériologie, Hôpital l'Archet, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Nice, France.
R RuimyUniversité Côte d'Azur, CHU, INSERM, C3M, Nice, France.
B LamyUniversité Côte d'Azur, CHU, INSERM, C3M, Nice, France. brigitte_lamy@yahoo.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the performance of a rapid multiplex microarray-based method (Unyvero BCU system, BCU) to identify microorganisms and detect antimicrobial resistance directly from positive blood culture (BC) bottles with polymicrobial growth, and to assess relevance of information provided for timely guidance of polymicrobial bloodstream infection treatment.

methodsAccuracy, time-to-actionable results and potential impact of BCU on antimicrobial treatment were compared with those of standard of care during a prospective study for the sample analysis (November 2017-November 2018) and a retrospective study for the clinical data analysis and the time-to-result analysis. The study was complemented with an experimental study, based on spiked blood cultures to assess the ability of the method to detect antimicrobial resistance genes.

resultsSixty-five clinical polymicrobial BC samples (163 total microorganisms) and 30 simulated polymicrobial BC samples (60 strains) were included. BCU reported 84.6% samples as polymicrobial, correctly identified all the bacteria of the mix for 72.3% samples (47/65) and detected bacteria that were missed by the conventional culture for 13.8% samples. All identifications and antimicrobial resistances were accurately detected for 61.5% (40/65) samples. Limitations concerned the detection of anaerobes, enterococci and enterobacterial susceptibility to third generation cephalosporins. BCU results would have guided antimicrobial treatment for 50.8% of the cases (33/65) in a timely and relevant manner, had no impact for 27.7% (18/65) and been misleading for 18.5% (12/65).

conclusionsDespite some limitations, the Unyvero BCU system is a rapid and reliable method for polymicrobial BC sample analysis.

Indexed as

BacteremiaBacteriaBlood CultureCoinfectionMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, BacterialFemaleHumansMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesAnti-Bacterial AgentsBlood cultureMultiplex PCRPolymicrobial bloodstream infectionRapid methodsTime-to-resultUnyvero BCU

Identifiers

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.