ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Diagnostic performance of Pneumonia multiplex PCR in critically ill immunocompromised patients.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- De-Escalation of Broad-Spectrum and Last-Resort Antibiotics in Critically Ill Adults with Gram-Negative Infections: A Scoping Review and Evidence-Informed Framework for Tertiary-Care ICUs.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Impact of ddPCR panel implementation on optimizing antimicrobial therapy management in critically ill patients with bloodstream infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Respiratory multiplex PCR and antimicrobial treatment modification in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
- Distinct pathogen spectrum in immunocompromised patients with severe pneumonia.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Review
- Molecular diagnostic technology: beyond analytical accuracy.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdmissions of immunocompromised patients to intensive care units (ICUs) are on the increase. The main reason for admission is acute respiratory failure, predominantly of infectious origin. In such circumstances, early and appropriate antibiotic therapy guarantees a better prognosis. Rapid diagnostic techniques such as multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) have shown their value in both diagnosis and treatment in immunocompetent patients. To date, little data are available on immunocompromised patients.
methodsIn this retrospective, single-center study, we analyzed data from critically ill immunocompromised patients admitted for acute respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation, in whom a respiratory specimen was taken and processed simultaneously by BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel multiplex PCR (BFPPm PCR) and conventional culture (CC). Samples had to be taken from deep respiratory tracts less than 48 h after mechanical ventilation. The primary endpoint was the evaluation of the diagnostic performance of BFPP mPCR compared with CC. The secondary endpoint was the therapeutic impact of the results of BFPP mPCR.
resultsOne hundred and fourteen patients were included, with immunosuppression mainly of a hematological (35.1%) and oncological (35.1%) nature. The mPCR positivity rate was 36.8%, with the majority identifying enterobacteria (51%) and a median turnaround time of between 2h30 and 4 h. Comparison of rapid techniques with CC showed sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 83%, predictive positive value of 52% and negative predictive value of 98%. Concordance between the two techniques was complete in 84.2% of cases. mPCR enabled antibiotic therapy to be modified in 17.5% of cases, mainly de-escalation.
conclusionThe use of mPCR in the diagnosis of pneumonia in immunocompromised patients shortens the time required to obtain results, and is particularly effective in eliminating the presence of multi-resistant germs. Bacteria detected in culture and not included in the mPCR spectrum were mostly bacteria of low pathogenicity or sensitive to the antibiotics usually prescribed. The mPCR technique could reduce exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics in this population.
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.