ArticlePloS one2017
Impact of rapid identification of positive blood cultures using the Verigene system on antibiotic prescriptions: A prospective study of community-onset bacteremia in a tertiary hospital in Japan.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consequences of host-microbiome interactions in preterm infants.Infection and immunity · 2025Review
- Getting Up to Speed: Rapid Pathogen and Antimicrobial Resistance Diagnostics in Sepsis.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Rapid diagnostics to enhance therapy selection for the treatment of bacterial infections.Current pharmacology reports · 2023Article
- Differentiating infection, colonisation, and sterile inflammation in critical illness: the emerging role of host-response profiling.Intensive care medicine · 2023Review
- Utility and Applicability of Rapid Diagnostic Testing in Antimicrobial Stewardship in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Delphi Consensus.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Article
- Characteristics of and risk factors for biliary pathogen infection in patients with acute pancreatitis.BMC microbiology · 2021Article
- Identification and Antibiotic Susceptibility Patterns of Clinical Blood Culture Isolates Not Identified by a Rapid Microarray Diagnostic System.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Observational
- Management of Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections in the Era of Rapid Diagnostic Testing: Impact With and Without Antibiotic Stewardship.Open forum infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Prediction of blood culture outcome using hybrid neural network model based on electronic health records.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Performance and potential clinical impact of Alfred60European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020Article
- Eight-Year Experience of Antimicrobial Stewardship Program and the Trend of Carbapenem Use at a Tertiary Acute-Care Hospital in Japan-The Impact of Postprescription Review and Feedback.Open forum infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the ePlex Blood Culture Identification Panels for Detection of Pathogens in Bloodstream Infections.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Detection of pathogenic microorganisms from bloodstream infection specimens using TaqMan array card technology.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Evaluation of the Accelerate Pheno™ system for rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Gram-negative bacteria in bloodstream infections.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid identification of positive blood cultures is important for initiation of optimal treatment in septic patients. Effects of automated, microarray-based rapid identification systems on antibiotic prescription against community-onset bacteremia (COB) remain unclear.
methodsWe prospectively enrolled 177 patients with 185 COB episodes (occurring within 72 h of admission) over 17 months. Bacteremia episodes due to gram-positive bacteria (GP) and gram-negative bacteria (GN) in the same patient were counted separately. For GP bacteremia, patients with ≥2 sets of positive blood cultures were included. The primary study objective was evaluating the rates of antibiotic prescription changes within 2 days of rapid identification using the Verigene system.
resultsBacteremia due to GN and GP included 144/185 (77.8%) and 41/185 (22.2%) episodes, respectively. Antibiotic prescription changes occurred in 51/185 cases (27.6% [95%CI:21.3-34.6%]) after Verigene analysis and 70/185 cases (37.8% [30.8-45.2%]) after conventional identification and susceptibility testing. Prescription changes after Verigene identification were more frequent in GP (17/41[41.5%]) than in GN (34/144[23.5%]). Among bacteremia due to single pathogen targeted by Verigene test, bacterial identification agreement between the two tests was high (GP: 38/39[97.4%], GN: 116/116[100%]). The Verigene test correctly predicted targeted antimicrobial resistance. The durations between the initiation of incubation and reporting of the results for the Verigene system and conventional test was 28.3 h (IQR: 25.8-43.4 h) and 90.6 h (68.3-118.4 h), respectively. In only four of the seven episodes of COB in which two isolates were identified by conventional tests, the Verigene test correctly identified both organisms.
conclusionWe observed a high rate of antibiotic prescription changes after the Verigene test in a population with COB especially in GP. The Verigene test would be a useful tool in antimicrobial stewardship programs among patients with COB.
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.