ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2018
Detection of MRSA in nasal swabs-marked reduction of time to report for negative reports by substituting classical manual workflow with total lab automation.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Still counting sperm? Why novel, truly informative measurements of testis function in male infertility are urgently needed.Endocrine · 2025Review
- Culture harder: use more specimens to increase methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus culture yield relative to PCR.Access microbiology · 2025Article
- Automated detection of methicillin-resistantJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Laboratory automation, informatics, and artificial intelligence: current and future perspectives in clinical microbiology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Surveillance for Colonization, Transmission, and Infection With Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Laboratory Automation in the Microbiology Laboratory: an Ongoing Journey, Not a Tale?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Benefits Derived from Full Laboratory Automation in Microbiology: a Tale of Four Laboratories.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) for positive blood cultures in clinical practice using a total lab automation.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020Article
- Impact of Total Laboratory Automation on Turnaround Times for Urine Cultures and Screening Specimens for MRSA, ESBL, and VRE Carriage: Retrospective Comparison With Manual Workflow.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of WASPLab Software To Automatically Read chromID CPS Elite Agar for Reporting of Urine Cultures.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Reducing the time between inoculation and first-read of urine cultures using total lab automation significantly reduces turn-around-time of positive culture results with minimal loss of first-read sensitivity.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019Article
- Laboratory automation reduces time to report of positive blood cultures and improves management of patients with bloodstream infection.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2018Article
- Laboratory Automation in Clinical Microbiology.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2016, the workflow for MRSA detection in nasal swabs was changed from a classic-manual workflow to an automated workflow using total lab automation (TLA; BD Kiestra). This change entailed a reduction of the incubation time from 2 days to 20 h and reading of plates on weekdays and weekends instead of weekdays only. The workflow alteration did not include the introduction of 24/7. We wanted to follow up on the consequences for the times to report (TTR). We compared the TTR of all nasal swabs, which were sent for MRSA detection from June until August in 2015 (workflow-classic-manual) and in 2016 (workflow-automated). We calculated median TTR and interquartile ranges for the three possible reporting outcomes (negative, MRSA-known, MRSA-new) per day and workflow. A multivariable linear regression modeled the exposure variables workflow, day, and reporting outcome on TTR including interaction variables. The quantity and reasons for a TTR longer than 3 days were analyzed. During both 3-month periods, a total of 16,111 reports were issued (2015:7620; 2016:8491). The median TTR for negative reports was 48:28 (hh:mm) in 2015 and 23:58 in 2016. In the linear regression, all exposure variables had a strong and highly significant (p < 0.001) influence on the TTR. The number of reports with a TTR longer than 3 days shrank from 2418 (2015) to 60 (2016). The workflow alteration halved the median TTR for negative reports and the number of reports with a TTR longer than 3 days was reduced by 97.5%.
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.