Observational studyRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2024
Evaluation of the effect of BioFire FilmArray nested multiplex polymerase chain reaction method on rapid pathogen identification and antimicrobial stewardship in sepsis.
Observational study in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, we aimed to assess the effect of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 panel on agent identification and antimicrobial stewardship in patients with a critical state of sepsis secondary to bloodstream infection.
methodsThis study was designed as a prospective observational study. Patients who developed sepsis and septic shock secondary to bloodstream infection in the intensive care unit were included in the study. Concordance in both monomicrobial and polymicrobial results of Blood Culture Identification 2 panel and conventional blood culture, test result times, and antibiotherapy changes according to Blood Culture Identification 2 panel results were evaluated.
resultsIn monomicrobial samples, sensitivity and specificity were 97.1% (95%CI 84.6-99.3) and 100% (95%CI 66.3-100), respectively, for gram-negative pathogens and 85.7% (95%CI 42.1-99.6) and 100% (95%CI 90.2-100), respectively, for gram-positive pathogens. In polymicrobial samples, Blood Culture Identification 2 panel results were 79% in concordance with conventional blood culture results. In this study, when the final turnaround time of the Blood Culture Identification 2 panel was compared with culture results, the Blood Culture Identification 2 panel was on average 1 day, 5 h, and 35 min faster than the culture (p<0.01).
conclusionBlood Culture Identification 2 testing is a reliable tool for rapid pathogen and antimicrobial susceptibility detection in critically ill sepsis patients. The use of the Blood Culture Identification 2 panel in patients with sepsis and/or septic shock, where the transition to targeted antibiotherapy is critical, may improve patient outcomes.
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.