ArticleBMC clinical pathology2015
Comparison of time-motion analysis of conventional stool culture and the BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel (EBP).
Article in BMC clinical pathology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Game Changer for Acute Gastroenteritis in the Pediatric Emergency Department: Multiplex Stool PCR Test.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
- Multicenter Analysis of the Attributable Diarrhea Risk and Odds Ratios of Pathogens in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta) Using Multiplex PCR Gastrointestinal Panel Testing and Conventional Fecal Culture.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025Article
- Multisite Evaluation of the BD Max Extended Enteric Bacterial Panel for Detection of Yersinia enterocolitica, Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli, Vibrio, and Plesiomonas shigelloides from Stool Specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Clinical Evaluation and Cost Analysis of Great Basin Shiga Toxin Direct Molecular Assay for Detection of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli in Diarrheal Stool Specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Utilizing BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel to Detect Stool Pathogens from Rectal Swabs.BMC clinical pathology · 2017Article
- Multicenter Evaluation of BD Max Enteric Parasite Real-Time PCR Assay for Detection of Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium hominis, Cryptosporidium parvum, and Entamoeba histolytica.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Comparison of the BD MAX® Enteric Bacterial Panel assay with conventional diagnostic procedures in diarrheal stool samples.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional bacterial stool culture is one of the more time-consuming tests in a routine clinical microbiology laboratory. In addition, less than 5 % of stool cultures yield positive results. A molecular platform, the BD MAX™ System (BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD) offers the potential for significantly more rapid results and less hands-on time. Time-motion analysis of the BD MAX Enteric Bacterial Panel (EBP) (BD Diagnostics, Quebec, Canada) on the BD MAX System was compared to conventional stool culture in the microbiology laboratory of a tertiary care pediatric hospital.
methodsThe process impact analysis of time-motion studies of conventional cultures were compared to those of EBP with 86 stool specimens. Sample flow, hands-on time, processing steps, and overall turnaround time were determined and analyzed. Data were obtained and analyzed from both standard operating procedures and direct observation. A regression analysis was performed to ensure consistency of measurements. Time and process measurements started when the specimens were logged into the accessioning area of the microbiology laboratory and were completed when actionable results were generated.
resultsWith conventional culture, negative culture results were available from 41:14:27 (hours:minutes:seconds) to 54:17:19; with EBP, positive and negative results were available from 2:28:40 to 3:33:39.
conclusionsThis study supports the suggestion that use of the EBP to detect commonly encountered stool pathogens can result in significant time savings and a shorter time-to-result for patients with acute bacterial diarrhea.
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.