Correction: Clinical Impact of MALDI-TOF MS Identification and Rapid Susceptibility Testing on Adequate Antimicrobial Treatment in Sepsis with Positive Blood Cultures.

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.

1. Rapid versus standard antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide treatment of bloodstream infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
   Pooled it
2. The implementation of rapid microbial identification via MALDI-ToF reduces mortality in gram-negative but not gram-positive bacteremia.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Clinical Impact of MALDI-TOF MS Identification and Rapid Susceptibility Testing on Adequate Antimicrobial Treatment in Sepsis with Positive Blood Cultures.2016

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract