ReviewBiotechnology progress2016
Rapid separation of bacteria from blood-review and outlook.
Review in Biotechnology progress, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 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
45 citing papers in PubMed, 98 citations in OpenAlex.
- Currently applied sonication protocols for the detection of implant-associated infections in orthopaedics: a scoping review.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Recent Advances in Bacterial Separation and Enrichment from Blood for the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- An Overview of Microfluidic Phenotype Separation of Bacteria.Current pharmaceutical design · 2026Review
- Fast-tracking fungal detection: a rapid flow cytometric method for the detection of yeasts in blood cultures.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Plug-and-Play Centrifuge-Only Device for Rapid Sepsis Diagnosis.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Culture-free detection of bacteria from blood for rapid sepsis diagnosis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Simple dual filter workflow for facilitating blood culture-free and sensitive detection of pathogenic bacteria from blood.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Isolation and identification of bacteria from blood within 12 h using standard laboratory equipment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Dielectrophoretic Microfluidic Designs for Precision Cell Enrichments and Highly Viable Label-Free Bacteria Recovery from Blood.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Carbapenem-ResistantNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Simultaneous high-throughput particle-bacteria separation and solution exchange via in-plane and out-of-plane parallelization of microfluidic centrifuges.Biomicrofluidics · 2024Article
- Advances in Host Depletion and Pathogen Enrichment Methods for Rapid Sequencing-Based Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infection.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2024Review
- Growth and Distribution of Bacteria in Contaminated Whole Blood and Derived Blood Components.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2024Article
- Elasto-inertial microfluidic separation of microspheres with submicron resolution at high-throughput.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2024Article
- Development of an Optically Induced Dielectrophoresis (ODEP) Microfluidic System for High-Performance Isolation and Purification of Bacteria.Biosensors · 2023Article
- Rapid Isolation of Low-Level Carbapenem-ResistantBiosensors · 2023Article
- Flow Cytometry: The Next Revolution.Cells · 2023Review
- A Review of Carbapenem Resistance inMicroorganisms · 2023Review
- Current and Future Flow Cytometry Applications Contributing to Antimicrobial Resistance Control.Microorganisms · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The high morbidity and mortality rate of bloodstream infections involving antibiotic-resistant bacteria necessitate a rapid identification of the infectious organism and its resistance profile. Traditional methods based on culturing the blood typically require at least 24 h, and genetic amplification by PCR in the presence of blood components has been problematic. The rapid separation of bacteria from blood would facilitate their genetic identification by PCR or other methods so that the proper antibiotic regimen can quickly be selected for the septic patient. Microfluidic systems that separate bacteria from whole blood have been developed, but these are designed to process only microliter quantities of whole blood or only highly diluted blood. However, symptoms of clinical blood infections can be manifest with bacterial burdens perhaps as low as 10 CFU/mL, and thus milliliter quantities of blood must be processed to collect enough bacteria for reliable genetic analysis. This review considers the advantages and shortcomings of various methods to separate bacteria from blood, with emphasis on techniques that can be done in less than 10 min on milliliter-quantities of whole blood. These techniques include filtration, screening, centrifugation, sedimentation, hydrodynamic focusing, chemical capture on surfaces or beads, field-flow fractionation, and dielectrophoresis. Techniques with the most promise include screening, sedimentation, and magnetic bead capture, as they allow large quantities of blood to be processed quickly. Some microfluidic techniques can be scaled up. © 2016 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 32:823-839, 2016.
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.