Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24981390›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2014

Evaluation of an intervention to improve blood culture practices: a cluster randomised trial.

P Pavese, M Maillet, V Vitrat-Hincky, C Recule, J-P Vittoz, A Guyomard, A Seigneurin, P François

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

8 authors.

P PaveseInfectious Diseases Department, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble, France, ppavese@chu-grenoble.fr.
M Maillet
V Vitrat-Hincky
C Recule
J-P Vittoz
A Guyomard
A Seigneurin
P François

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate an intervention to improve blood culture practices. A cluster randomised trial in two parallel groups was performed at the Grenoble University Hospital, France. In October 2009, the results of a practices audit and the guidelines for the optimal use of blood cultures were disseminated to clinical departments. We compared two types of information dissemination: simple presentation or presentation associated with an infectious diseases (ID) specialist intervention. The principal endpoint was blood culture performance measured by the rate of patients having one positive blood culture and the rate of positive blood cultures. The cases of 130 patients in the "ID" group and 119 patients in the "simple presentation" group were audited during the second audit in April 2010. The rate of patients with one positive blood culture increased in both groups (13.62 % vs 9.89 % for the ID group, p = 0.002, 15.90 % vs 13.47 % for the simple presentation group, p = 0.009). The rate of positive blood cultures improved in both groups (6.68 % vs 5.96 % for the ID group, p = 0.003, 6.52 % vs 6.21 % for the simple presentation group, p = 0.017). The blood culture indication was significantly less often specified in the request form in the simple presentation group, while it remained stable in the ID group (p = 0.04). The rate of positive blood cultures and the rate of patients having one positive blood culture improved in both groups. The ID specialist intervention did not have more of an impact on practices than a simple presentation of audit feedback and guidelines.

Indexed as

AdultBacteremiaBacteriaBacteriological TechniquesBloodChildCluster AnalysisFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleMedical AuditRandom Allocation

Identifiers

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.