ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Use of the BIOFIRE
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) account for a heavy burden of illness in low- and middle-income country settings, but the etiology of these infections is often unknown. In this study, we applied the BIOFIRE
methodsWe enrolled children and adults hospitalized with LRTIs at a public tertiary care hospital in southern Sri Lanka from 2019 to 2021. Demographic and clinical data were collected, and a sputum sample for each patient was tested using the Pneumonia plus Panel. Assay results were compared with sputum culture results. Fisher's exact test was applied to identify association between the presence of viruses, bacteria, or antimicrobial resistant genes and the findings of the chest radiographs during hospitalization as well as associations between the genomic concentration identified through the panel and the bacteria known to cause typical pneumonia infection included in the panel.
resultsIn 267 patients tested, the most detected bacteria by the Pneumonia plus Panel were the Klebsiella pneumoniae group (41.9%), Staphylococcus aureus (34.5%), and the Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex (32.6%). The most detected viruses were the human rhinovirus/enterovirus (19.5%) and influenza A (10.9%). In total, 211 patients (79.0%) had at least one gram-negative bacterium and 139 patients (52.1%) had at least one gram-positive bacteria. As for Antimicrobial Resistance, 96 patients (40.0%) had at least one carbapenem resistant gene, 56 patients (21.0%) had an extended spectrum beta-lactamase related gene, and 42 patients (15.7%) had a methicillin resistant gene. Only 15 patients (5.6%) were identified to have Pneumonia plus Panel results matching with sputum culture results.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that patients with LRTI in Southern Province, Sri Lanka have a high prevalence of gram-negative bacteria and antibacterial resistance in their sputum samples. However, it remains difficult to differentiate isolates that are colonizers not leading to disease versus the true cause of infection via the use of the BIOFIRE
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.