ArticleInfection and drug resistance2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of the Biofire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) for Bloodstream Infections in Limpopo, South Africa.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bloodstream infections are a leading global cause of mortality and morbidity. Timely and accurate diagnosis improves outcomes, especially in resource-limited settings. Rapid and accurate diagnostic tools are essential for effective treatment, particularly in resource-limited settings. Our study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the BCID2 assay, comparing its effectiveness to the VITEK2 at a routine lab in Limpopo, South Africa, where alternative assays are necessary to overcome resource unavailability in areas located further away from major laboratories. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from August to December 2023. A total of 247 positive blood culture bottles were tested using both BCID2 and VITEK2 systems. Statistical analysis, including specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy, was calculated using Medcalc and SPSS. Results: The BCID2 panel demonstrated a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 95.7%, 95.5%, and 96%, respectively. Of the samples, 72% (179/247) were monomicrobial and 28% (68/247) were polymicrobial, with a total of 16 off-panel microorganisms identified across both groups. blaCTX-M was the most frequent Gram-negative resistance gene detected (55.2%, 80/145), while blaVIM was the least common (0.7%, 1/145). Conclusion: The study concluded that the BCID2 assay demonstrates excellent diagnostic accuracy, with sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy rates above 95%. Its ability to rapidly detect bloodstream infections and antimicrobial resistance markers makes it a highly effective tool, particularly in resource-limited settings like Limpopo, South Africa, where timely and accurate diagnosis is crucial to improving patient outcomes.
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.