Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24648549›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014

The automated clinical microbiology laboratory: fact or fantasy?

Nathan A Ledeboer, Steven D Dallas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Impact of total laboratory automation on workflow and specimen processing time for culture of urine specimens.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Invisible Army.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Automatic Digital Plate Reading for Surveillance Cultures.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nathan A LedeboerDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, and Dynacare Laboratories, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA nledeboe@mcw.edu dallass@uthscsa.edu.
Steven D DallasDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, UT Health Science Center San Antonio, and Microbiology Laboratory, University Hospital, San Antonio, Texas, USA nledeboe@mcw.edu dallass@uthscsa.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automated chemistry laboratories dependent on robotic processes are the standard in both academic and large community hospital settings. Diagnostic microbiology manufacturers are betting that robotics will be used for specimen processing, plate reading, and organism identification in the near future. These systems are highly complex and have large footprints and hefty price tags. However, they are touted as being more efficient, rapid, and accurate than standard processes. Certain features, such as image collection, are highly innovative. Hospital administrators may be swayed to institute these new systems because of the promise of the need for fewer skilled workers, higher throughput, and greater efficiency. They also may be swayed by the fact that workers with the requisite clinical microbiology skills are becoming more difficult to find, and this technology should allow fewer skilled workers to handle larger numbers of cultures. In this Point-Counterpoint, Nate Ledeboer, Medical Director, Clinical Microbiology and Molecular Diagnostics, Dynacare Laboratories, and Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, WI, will explain why he believes that this approach will become widespread, while Steve Dallas of the University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio explains why he thinks that this automation may not become widely used.

Indexed as

Automation, LaboratoryHumansMicrobiological TechniquesTexas

Identifiers

PMID24648549
PMCPMC4313129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.