Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25527447›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2015

Impact of same-day antibiotic susceptibility testing on time to appropriate antibiotic treatment of patients with bacteraemia: a randomised controlled trial.

J Beuving, P F G Wolffs, W L J Hansen, E E Stobberingh, C A Bruggeman, A Kessels, A Verbon

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, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Effect of Direct-from-blood Bacterial Testing on Antibiotics Administration in Adults Presenting With Acute Infection: A Randomized Trial.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. The Performance of Direct Disk Diffusion for Community Acquired Bacteremia due to Gram-Negative Bacilli and Its Impact on Physician Treatment Decisions.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2016
    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

7 authors.

J BeuvingDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC), P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands, j.beuving@elisabeth.nl.
P F G Wolffs
W L J Hansen
E E Stobberingh
C A Bruggeman
A Kessels
A Verbon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inadequate therapy in bloodstream infections is suggested to be associated with higher mortality. We evaluated the reduction in inappropriate antibiotic therapy using rapid identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing (FAST) compared to standard of care (SOC) testing in patients with bloodstream infections. The FAST method used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for identification and to detect growth in the presence or absence of antibiotics after only 6 h. For SOC testing, the BD Phoenix system was used. Patients with blood cultures growing Staphylococcus, Streptococcus or Enterococcus species or Gram-negative rods were randomised for FAST or SOC tests. A total of 129 patients were randomised for FAST and 121 patients for the SOC group. At the time SOC results became available, 78 patients in the FAST group could have been switched to more appropriate therapy. Although FAST results were highly accurate (agreement with SOC was 94%), they were only implemented in a minority (16) of patients. However, significantly fewer patients in the FAST group used inappropriate therapy at the time of SOC results (p = 0.025). The time to results in the FAST group was reduced by 15.6 h (p < 0.001). In the patients switched after FAST, this was done after a mean of 42.3 h compared to 61.4 h in those switched after SOC tests (p < 0.001). In bacteraemic patients, FAST resulted in significantly more patients using appropriate antibiotic therapy at the time SOC results were available and 15.6 h earlier than SOC tests. However, the implementation of FAST results was not optimal and no benefit on clinical outcome was shown.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteremiaFemaleHumansMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMiddle AgedTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID25527447

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.