ArticlePloS one2026
Clinical performance of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel for microorganism species identification and resistance gene detection in blood culture-positive specimens.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBloodstream infections are life-threatening, and the rapid identification of pathogens and resistance genes is essential for the administration of appropriate antimicrobial agents. The BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) panel on the FilmArray multi-parameter genetic analyzer is a fully automated PCR test that rapidly identifies species and resistance genes. Here, we compared the performance of the Filmarray BCID2 panel (BCID2 method) with the conventional method.
methodsAmong the blood culture-positive specimens submitted between January 2023 and November 2024, this study analyzed 201 specimens that contained the target microorganisms of the BCID2 panel. In our laboratory, after subculturing the culture medium obtained from a positive blood-culture bottle, we perform species identification using mass spectrometry and drug susceptibility testing (the conventional method). We compared the results of the BCID2 method with those of the conventional method.
resultsConcordance between the BCID2 and conventional methods was found in 152 of the 161 monomicrobial specimens (94.4%) and in 31 of the 40 polymicrobial specimens (77.5%). The 18 specimens that were discordant were mostly matched at the genus level, but the BCID2 method also detected other microorganisms that were not identified by the conventional method. Resistance genes were identified in 57 of the 61 matched specimens (93.4%).
conclusionThe BCID2 method exhibits excellent identification results and resistance gene detection rates, suggesting that it is a reliable and rapid diagnostic test system for bloodstream infections.
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.