These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel compared to direct MALDI-TOF MS identification for rapid identification of pathogens.
    Author: Payne M, Champagne S, Lowe C, Leung V, Hinch M, Romney MG.
    Journal: J Med Microbiol; 2018 Sep; 67(9):1253-1256. PubMed ID: 30028662.
    Abstract:
    To improve time to identification of pathogens and detection of resistance genes, we evaluated the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel (BCID) as compared to: (1) direct MALDI-TOF MS (DM) and (2) standardized culture-based identification (ID) with antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST). BCID gave an accurate identification in 102/112 (91 %) of cases (102/103 for on-panel organisms). DM gave an accurate identification in 91/112 (81 %) of cases, with 13/91 (14 %) requiring repeat testing from the residual pellet. The mean time to an identification result was 2.4 and 2.9 h for BCID and DM, respectively. Standardized ID and AST results were available at a mean time of 26.5 and 33 h, respectively. There were 44 BCID/DM results that had an antimicrobial treatment change made based on rapid identification and resistant gene detection of pathogens. Both BCID and DM are accurate and rapid methods for the identification of new positive blood culture pathogens.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]