ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2018
Manual versus automated streaking system in clinical microbiology laboratory: Performance evaluation of Previ Isola for blood culture and body fluid samples.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Focused Review on Commercially Available Automated Systems for Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing.Journal of tropical medicine · 2025Review
- The Impact of Laboratory Automation on the Time to Urine Microbiological Results: A Five-Year Retrospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Conversion of a classical microbiology laboratory to a total automation laboratory enhanced by the application of lean principles.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Rising Drug Resistance Among Gram-Negative Pathogens in Bloodstream Infections: A Multicenter Study in Ulanhot, Inner Mongolia (2017-2021).Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
- Automation in the Life Science Research Laboratory.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Review
- Benefits of VISION Max automated cross-matching in comparison with manual cross-matching: A multidimensional analysis.PloS one · 2019Article
- The Journey of Cultures Taken During Revision Joint Arthroplasty: Preanalytical Phase.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2019Article
- [Clinical characteristics and prognosis of 56 multiple myeloma patients over 70 years of age complicated with other systemic diseases].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2018Article
- Manual versus automated streaking system in clinical microbiology laboratory: Performance evaluation of Previ Isola for blood culture and body fluid samples.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe process of plate streaking has been automated to improve routine workflow of clinical microbiology laboratories. Although there were many evaluation reports about the inoculation of various body fluid samples, few evaluations have been reported for blood. In this study, we evaluated the performance of automated inoculating system, Previ Isola for various routine clinical samples including blood.
methodsBlood culture, body fluid, and urine samples were collected. All samples were inoculated on both sheep blood agar plate (BAP) and MacConkey agar plate (MCK) using Previ Isola and manual method. We compared two methods in aspect of quality and quantity of cultures, and sample processing time. To ensure objective colony counting, an enumeration reading reference was made through a preliminary experiment.
resultsA total of 377 nonduplicate samples (102 blood culture, 203 urine, 72 body fluid) were collected and inoculated. The concordance rate of quality was 100%, 97.0%, and 98.6% in blood, urine, and other body fluids, respectively. In quantitative aspect, it was 98.0%, 97.0%, and 95.8%, respectively. The Previ Isola took a little longer to inoculate the specimen than manual method, but the hands-on time decreased dramatically. The shortened hands-on time using Previ Isola was about 6 minutes per 10 samples.
conclusionWe demonstrated that the Previ Isola showed high concordance with the manual method in the inoculation of various body fluids, especially in blood culture sample. The use of Previ Isola in clinical microbiology laboratories is expected to save considerable time and human resources.
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.