ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2026
Evaluation of FilmArray Multiplex PCR Test Results in Bloodstream Infections in Oncological Patients.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid identification of microorganisms and resistance genes in positive blood cultures may help optimize early antibiotic therapy and improve outcomes. In this study, we compared the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) panel results with routine microbiological examination methods in blood cultures that gave positive signals in an Oncology hospital.
methodsGram stain results from positive blood culture bottles were reported to the clinic as panic value. After clinical evaluation, 93 positive blood cultures that met the inclusion criteria were evaluated with BCID2 panels in addition to routine microbiological examination. Microorganisms were identified at the species level with Vitek MS (MALDI-TOF, BioMérieux, France), and susceptibility tests were performed with the Vitek 2 (BioMérieux, France) system. BCID2 panel was compared with the routine microbiological methods.
resultsUsing BCID2 panels, microorganisms were identified in 87 out of 93 bottles. Growth occurred in the culture in 6 bottles that gave negative results with BCID2. These microorganisms are not included in the BCID2 panel. There was no growth in the culture in one bottle in which S. pneumoniae was detected by BCID2. While all bacteria that could be identified by BCID2 and Vitek MS were the same at the genus level, only 5 were different at the species level. Using BCID2, 59 bacteria from the samples included in the study were determined to carry one or more resistance genes.
conclusionBCID2 panel provided faster results and its results showed a high correlation with traditional blood culture identification and antimicrobial sensitivity results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.