ArticleAnnals of burns and fire disasters2025
[Efficiency and Usefulness of the Molecular Test 'Biofire
Article in Annals of burns and fire disasters, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The occurrence of bacteremia during a hospital stay worsens the prognosis of patients. Especially in burn patients, it is one of the most severe infectious complications during their stay in intensive care units, with high mortality rates. Consequently, rapid detection of the pathogens responsible is crucial for the prompt initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy. In our study, we analysed 85 positive blood cultures collected from 66 patients hospitalised in the burns unit and presenting criteria for sepsis. The results of the molecular test FilmArray BCID2 were compared with those of conventional microbiology methods. Overall, the results of the BCID2 panel were concordant with those of conventional culture in 71.8% of cases. For monomicrobial cultures, the concordance of identification was 83.9%, while for polymicrobial cultures the concordance was 36.4%. The test showed a good performance in the detection of pathogens, with an overall sensitivity of 84.5% and specificity of 98.3%; for the panel targets these rates rose to 95.4% and 98.1% respectively. For resistance genes, the BCID2 detected the blaCTX-M gene in 9 enterobacteria and the carbapenemase genes: blaNDM, blaOXA-48- like, blaVIM in 20 BGN. The mecA/C gene was isolated from 5
Indexed as
Identifiers
41479625PMC12755345What 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.