ArticleScientific reports2026
Protocolized antimicrobial stewardship following filmarray pneumonia plus panel testing in mechanically ventilated patients with severe lower respiratory tract infection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibiotic Escalation Following Rapid Multiplex PCR Pneumonia Panel Testing in Intensive Care Patients with Severe Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle: Updated Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
Abstract
We evaluated the impact of the implementation of a protocolized list of antimicrobial stewardship actionables based upon the results of the Biofire Filmarray pneumonia plus panel (FA-PP) on antimicrobial use in mechanically-ventilated critically ill patients with lower respiratory tract infection and its cost-effectiveness compared to the standard-of-care. Retrospective, pre- and post-FA-PP-implementation study including 213 consecutive patients, of which most (n = 198) were under empirical antimicrobial therapy (EAT) at the time of testing. Endotracheal aspirates were usually processed for microbiological testing. The primary study outcome was the number of participants with administration of antimicrobials or subjected to changes in EAT deemed to be appropriate. Secondary outcomes were the time to antimicrobial stewardship; and the total number of days on antimicrobial therapy. Conventional culture retrieved clinically significant results in 48/113 (42.4%) and 37/100 (37%) in the pre-FA-PP and post- FA-PP periods (P = 0.48). FA-PP increased the detection yield compared to conventional culture. The spectrum of bacterial species involved was comparable across both periods. Appropriate and proportionate adjustment of EAT was made more frequently in the post-FA-PP phase (54/89; 60.6%) than in the pre-FA-PP phase (55/109; 50.4%) (P = 0.15) and at earlier times. When considering the entire pre-FA-PP and post-FA-PP cohorts, no difference was noticed on duration of antimicrobial treatments (mean, 7.1 days vs. 7.6 days, respectively (P = 0.32). Nevertheless, adequate selection of patients for FA-PP testing enabled a reduction in the total number of antibiotic treatment days, with an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of €151/day. Antimicrobial stewardship driven by the FA-PP panel results was sped up relative to that based upon standard practice with at least a comparable appropriateness and a rather negligible increase in costs.
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.