ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Impact of the BioFire
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute gastroenteritis (AGE), a leading cause of worldwide morbidity, can be triggered by a wide array of pathogens. Syndromic molecular platforms, such as the BioFire
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study at Dr. Soliman Fakeeh Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from January 2023 to December 2024. All adult patients (≥ 18 years) with suspected AGE tested using the FilmArray GIP were eligible for inclusion. Clinical and laboratory data, GIP findings, antimicrobial therapy, and clinical outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records.
resultsA total of 176 adult patients with AGE were included in this analysis. The FilmArray GIP detected bacterial pathogens in 86.4% of patients, while viral and parasitic agents were identified in 20.5% and 10.2% of the cohort, respectively. Co-detections were observed in 46.6% of patients, although their clinical relevance remains uncertain. Stool microscopy failed to detect any parasitic pathogens, whereas the multiplex panel identified parasites in 18 patients (p < 0.001). Detection of Salmonella was more than five times higher with the FilmArray GIP compared with stool culture (18.2% versus 3.4%; p < 0.001). The FilmArray GIP was associated with antimicrobial modifications, with no antibiotics prescribed in 30.1% of patients, whereas targeted antimicrobials were initiated in 27.3%. Notably, 8.5% of cases required transmission-based isolation, with Clostridioides difficile infections were more frequently associated with isolation compared with norovirus cases (42.3% versus 15.4%; p = 0.11).
conclusionsThe FilmArray GIP demonstrated higher detection yield for enteric pathogens compared with conventional diagnostic techniques. Rapid identification of enteric pathogens was temporally associated with antimicrobial optimization and infection control decisions. Taken together, these findings highlight the potential role of syndromic molecular testing in the management of adult AGE. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.