Trial reportMicrobiology spectrum2025
Rapid molecular detection of respiratory pathogens in patients admitted with suspected community-acquired pneumonia: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Microbiology spectrum, 2025. 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.
- Evaluating the Impact of Filmarray Pneumonia Plus Panel in Therapeutic Decision-Making in Critical Patients with Suspected Respiratory Infection.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
In a randomized trial, we demonstrated that implementing point-of-care (POC) PCR detection of respiratory pathogens in an emergency department (ED) setting did not change overall antibiotic use but led to more targeted treatment and a clinically relevant, albeit non-significant, reduction in length of stay. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic impact of POC-PCR testing in patients with suspected community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the ED. This study is a secondary analysis of a Danish multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) that included patients aged ≥18 years admitted to the ED between March 2021 and February 2022. In the primary trial, patients were randomly assigned to one of two parallel groups: (i) intervention group: POC-PCR in addition to standard care, or (ii) control group: standard care only (SCO). The present secondary analysis focuses exclusively on patients in the intervention group, where both POC-PCR and standard culture-based diagnostics were performed. The diagnosis of CAP was determined by an expert panel. In the intervention group, 145 patients had a lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens analyzed using both POC-PCR and culture. POC-PCR identified notably more microorganisms compared with culture (187 vs 34). The agreement between positive results obtained by POC-PCR and culture was 6 of 19 (31.6%) for IMPORTANCE: Our findings suggest that point-of-care (POC)-PCR testing can significantly enhance the diagnostic accuracy for CAP in the emergency department (ED), thereby facilitating more targeted and effective antimicrobial treatment. In light of growing concerns about antimicrobial resistance and the pressing need for rapid diagnostics in acute care settings, we believe our study holds considerable relevance for clinical practice in the ED.
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.