ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2025
Performance evaluation of a commercial multiplex pathogen panel for the diagnosis of pediatric joint infections.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2025. 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.
- An in-houseJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a commercial multiplex pathogen panel for the diagnosis of pediatricJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Reply to "Evaluation of a commercial multiplex pathogen panel for the diagnosis of pediatricJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
This study evaluates the performance of the BIOFIRE Joint Infection (JI) Panel compared to joint fluid culture and/or 16S rRNA PCR, followed by Sanger sequencing (16S PCR/S) for the diagnosis of joint infections in pediatric patients. An on-panel organism was detected by standard-of-care joint (SOCj) studies (joint fluid culture with or without 16S PCR/S, as ordered by the treating physician) in 29/65 samples (44.6%), and the same organism was detected by the BIOFIRE JI panel in all samples. The cumulative positive percent agreement in the detection of on-panel genus or species-level targets by the BIOFIRE JI panel was 100% (36/36), 100% (25/25), and 100% (27/27), and the negative percent agreement was 99.7% (1,974/1,979), 99.2% (1,974/1,990), and 99.7% (1,303/1,307) compared to detection by SOCj, joint fluid culture only, or 16S PCR/S only, respectively. The potential clinical impact of employing the BIOFIRE JI panel was predicted by retrospective adjudication using a study-specific rubric. We predicted that 27.7% (18/65) of BIOFIRE JI panel results could have had a positive impact on patient care. One case (1.5%) was predicted to potentially have a negative impact, and three cases (4.6%) were adjudicated to have an unknown impact. All organisms detected by 16S PCR/S, but not by culture, were also detected by the BIOFIRE JI panel during this study. IMPORTANCE: The BIOFIRE JI Panel has been limitedly evaluated in pediatric patients. Our study shows a strong agreement between the BIOFIRE JI panel and culture and/or 16S rRNA PCR with Sanger sequencing for the detection of the most common pathogenic causes of joint infection in children. The faster time to results of the BIOFIRE JI panel has the potential to guide optimal treatment faster than conventional methods.
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.