ArticlePneumonia (Nathan Qld.)2026
Diagnostic BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia Panel Plus versus standard microbial culture in bronchiectasis exacerbations.
Article in Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.), 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnostic performance of the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia Panel Plus (FAPP) compared to standard microbial culture (SMC) during bronchiectasis (BE) exacerbations is unknown.
objectiveTo compare the microbiological diagnostic performance between FAPP and SMC during BE exacerbations. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsA prospective observational study was conducted in adults with a BE exacerbation at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona (Spain) June 2020 to April 2022. All sputum samples underwent processing using both the FAPP and SMC (n = 109) but we focused in good quality samples (n = 73).
resultsThe FAPP detected pathogens in a higher percentage (n = 64, 88%) compared to SMC (n = 41, 56%). This increase was higher in samples from patients receiving empiric antibiotic treatment (n = 24, 89% and n = 10, 37%, for FAPP and SMC, respectively). The FAPP identified in 29 sputum (40%) more than one microorganism, while by SMC were all monomicrobial (n = 73, 100%). In 93 out of 109 BE exacerbations (85%), clinicians used the FAPP results for treatment decisions. According to the pathogen found by FAPP, immediate change of empiric treatment occurred in 15 out of 38 patients (40%) receiving empiric antimicrobial at time of exacerbation. Early treatment adequacy likely contributed to the low rate of treatment modifications observed by day 5 of exacerbation when the overall rate of treatment changes was low (8%) and treatment failure was noted in only 2% of the total population.
conclusionThe FAPP demonstrated significantly higher microbiological diagnostic performance compared to SMC, regardless of prior antibiotic exposure. Improved pathogen detection using FAPP enabled more accurate initial antimicrobial therapy, which was associated with low rates of treatment failure.
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.