ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2016
Comparison of BacT/Alert FAN and FAN Plus Bottles with Conventional Medium for Culturing Cerebrospinal Fluid.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cerebrospinal Procalcitonin for Diagnosing Meningitis in Infants Less Than 90 Days: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Indian pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of the Accelerate Pheno System for Rapid Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Positive Blood Culture Bottles Inoculated with Primary Sterile Specimens from Patients with Suspected Severe Infections.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the BacT/Alert system FAN and FAN Plus media to conventional media for culturing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) with 2,545 samples. FAN/FAN Plus bottles showed better performance for isolating microorganisms in CSF than conventional media (positive rate, 7.2% [182/2,545] versus 3.1% [80/2,545]). The incremental recovery rate of Cryptococcus neoformans from FAN Plus bottles was higher than that from FAN bottles.
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.