ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2001
Utility of paired BACTEC MYCO/F LYTIC blood culture vials for detection of bacteremia, mycobacteremia, and fungemia.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contribution of the BacT/Alert MB Mycobacterium bottle to bloodstream infection surveillance in Thailand: added yield for Burkholderia pseudomallei.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Controlled comparison of BacT/Alert MB system, manual Myco/F lytic procedure, and isolator 10 system for diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Bacteremia.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- Blood culture collection technique and pneumococcal surveillance in Malawi during the four year period 2003-2006: an observational study.BMC infectious diseases · 2008Article
- Blood culture contamination in Tanzania, Malawi, and the United States: a microbiological tale of three cities.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2006Article
- Use of the BACTEC MYCO/F LYTIC medium for detection of Brucella melitensis bacteremia.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In previous bloodstream infection studies in Malawi, we inoculated blood from a single venesection into a single BACTEC MYCO/F LYTIC (MFL) vial. Inoculation of one vial, however, would be expected to reduce the sensitivity of bloodstream pathogen detection with MFL vials. To ascertain the degree of this loss of sensitivity, blood was drawn from each of 228 febrile, adult inpatients in Malawi and 5 ml of each blood sample was inoculated into each of two MFL vials. Of 228 paired vials, 51 (22%) were both positive, 172 (75%) were both negative, and 5 (3%) had discordant results. Bloodstream infection would have been detected in 11 (92%) of 12 patients with mycobacteremia and 38 (92%) of 41 patients with bacteremia had only one MFL vial been inoculated. Our study shows that a second MFL vial does not significantly increase diagnostic sensitivity.
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.