Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25877009›Full record

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

Performance of Gram staining on blood cultures flagged negative by an automated blood culture system.

A Peretz, N Isakovich, N Pastukh, A Koifman, T Glyatman, D Brodsky

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

A PeretzClinical Microbiology Laboratory, Baruch Padeh Medical Center, Poriya, Affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine, Bar-Ilan University, Galilee, Israel, aperetz@poria.health.gov.il.
N Isakovich
N Pastukh
A Koifman
T Glyatman
D Brodsky

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood is one of the most important specimens sent to a microbiology laboratory for culture. Most blood cultures are incubated for 5-7 days, except in cases where there is a suspicion of infection caused by microorganisms that proliferate slowly, or infections expressed by a small number of bacteria in the bloodstream. Therefore, at the end of incubation, misidentification of positive cultures and false-negative results are a real possibility. The aim of this work was to perform a confirmation by Gram staining of the lack of any microorganisms in blood cultures that were identified as negative by the BACTEC™ FX system at the end of incubation. All bottles defined as negative by the BACTEC FX system were Gram-stained using an automatic device and inoculated on solid growth media. In our work, 15 cultures that were defined as negative by the BACTEC FX system at the end of the incubation were found to contain microorganisms when Gram-stained. The main characteristic of most bacteria and fungi growing in the culture bottles that were defined as negative was slow growth. This finding raises a problematic issue concerning the need to perform Gram staining of all blood cultures, which could overload the routine laboratory work, especially laboratories serving large medical centers and receiving a large number of blood cultures.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAutomation, LaboratoryBacteriaBacteriological TechniquesBloodChild, PreschoolFalse Negative ReactionsFemaleFungiHumansMaleMiddle AgedSepsisStaining and Labeling

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.