Observational studyJournal of clinical microbiology2026
Remote regions, rapid recognition: performance and timeliness of BIOFIRE FilmArray BCID2 for diagnosing bloodstream infection in remote northern Australia.
Observational study in Journal of clinical microbiology, 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
Abstract
Bloodstream infection is a time-critical diagnosis; however, the vast geographic distances in rural and remote locations lead to prolonged specimen transport times, which can impact the timeliness and quality of results. In this retrospective observational study, we evaluated the performance and timeliness of the BIOFIRE FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) nucleic acid amplification test conducted on positive blood culture broth fluid in two very remote hospital laboratories in the Northern Territory, Australia, and compared the results to conventional testing done in central laboratories in the laboratory network. We reviewed 343 blood cultures, from which 366 organisms were identified, collected between January 2021 and August 2024. In 207/228 (90.8%) blood cultures with at least one pathogen, the clinically significant organism(s) were detected by BCID2. Concordance between BCID2 and conventional identification methods for organisms on the BCID2 panel was 98.3% (95% confidence interval 96.1%-99.4%). Seventy-four organisms isolated had no BCID2 target; of these, 21 were pathogens, 15 of which were
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.