ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2014
SeptiFast for diagnosis of sepsis in severely ill patients from a Brazilian hospital.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests forPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of LightCycler(®) SeptiFast for the detection and identification of pathogens in the blood of patients with suspected sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Intensive care medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Rapid molecular assays versus blood culture for bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test and validate a multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction method for bloodstream infections, as well as to compare the results with conventional blood culture.
methodsA total of 114 consecutive patients with clinical evidence of sepsis were submitted to blood culture and LightCycler™ SeptiFast tests.
resultsMore positive specimens (23; 20.2%) were detected using the LightCycler™ SeptiFast than the blood culture (17; 14.9%), with an agreement of 86.8%. Discordant results were seen in four patients positive only to blood culture, ten positive only to LightCycler™ SeptiFast and one to different pathogens found by each test. Infections with microorganisms detected only using blood culture reassured the need to perform both tests. The mean time to results for blood culture was 5 days for negative and 3.5 days for positive results. LightCycler™ SeptiFast results were achieved in less than 8 hours.
conclusionLightCycler™ SeptiFast showed a high potential as a test to be carried out concomitantly with blood culture for sepsis diagnosis in severely ill patients. This test allowed a faster diagnosis of bacterial and fungal infections that helped to reduce hospital stay and to control the use of antibiotics. LightCycler™ SeptiFast can also eventually detect microorganism and infections that are hardly detected by blood culture, especially Candida non-albicans infections.
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.