Evidence Hub

Impact of syndromic molecular diagnostics on antimicrobial adequacy and time to therapy in critically ill patients with pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Yuri de Albuquerque Pessoa dos Santos, B. Tomazini, Maurício Henrique Claro dos Santos, Eduardo Lyra de Queiroz, L. Pastore, E. Costa, F. J. da Silva Ramos

Critical Care, 2025

2,466 participants · 16 citations

Abstract

Pneumonia is a leading cause of ICU admission and mortality, requiring prompt and adequate antimicrobial therapy to improve outcomes. Conventional cultures are slow and often insensitive, delaying targeted treatment. Syndromic PCR panels offer rapid identification of pathogens and resistance genes directly from respiratory samples, potentially improving early antibiotic optimization. However, the true clinical benefit of these diagnostics in critically ill patients remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCR-based molecular diagnostics with standard culture techniques in predominantly adult ICU patients with severe community-acquired, hospital-acquired, or ventilator-associated pneumonia. Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to July 16, 2025. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included adequacy of initial antimicrobial therapy and time to effective antibiotic administration. Data were synthesized using random-effects models. We included five randomized controlled trials comprising 2,466 patients. Syndromic PCR testing did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome (RR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.90–1.21; p = 0.57; I² = 0%). However, PCR testing was associated with a higher rate of adequate initial antimicrobial therapy (RR 1.82; 95% CI: 1.10–3.00; p = 0.02; I² = 97%) and a reduction in time to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,466 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free