ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2015
Balancing Enthusiasm for Innovative Technologies with Optimizing Value: An Approach to Adopt New Laboratory Tests for Infectious Diseases Using Bloodstream Infections as Exemplar.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid MALDI-TOF MS antimicrobial susceptibility testing with the MBT FAST assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Performance of direct-from-blood-culture disk diffusion antibiotic susceptibility testing and its impact on antibiotic adjustment in bloodstream infections at a Malaysian tertiary center.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Direct Identification, Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, and Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase and Carbapenemase Detection in Gram-Negative Bacteria Isolated from Blood Cultures.Infection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- Laboratory and clinical impacts of an overnight laboratory service.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Article
- Microplate-based surface area assay for rapid phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility testing.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- New Microbiological Techniques in the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Review
- Rapid Direct Susceptibility Testing from Positive Blood Cultures by the Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry-Based Direct-on-Target Microdroplet Growth Assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Fluorescent nanodiamond-bacteriophage conjugates maintain host specificity.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of exciting new technologies have emerged to detect infectious diseases with greater accuracy and provide faster times to result in hopes of improving the provision of care and patient outcomes. However, the challenge in evaluating new methods lies not in the technical performance of tests but in (1) defining the specific advantages of new methods over the present gold standards in a practicable way and (2) understanding how advanced technologies will prompt changes in medical and public health decisions. With rising costs to deliver care, enthusiasm for innovative technologies should be balanced with a comprehensive understanding of clinical and laboratory ecosystems and how such factors influence the success or failure of test implementation. Selecting bloodstream infections as an exemplar, we provide a 6-step model for test adoption that will help clinicians and laboratorians better define the value of a new technology specific to their clinical practices.
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.