ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2018
Blood Culture Results Reporting: How Fast Is Your Laboratory and Is Faster Better?
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The American Society for Microbiology's evidence-based laboratory medicine practice guidelines for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections using rapid tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025Guideline
- Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Reporting and Dual-Card Testing in ICU Bloodstream Infections.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Predicting appropriateness of antibiotic treatment among ICU patients with hospital-acquired infection.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Laboratory and clinical impacts of an overnight laboratory service.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society 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
- Adoption of new technologies in laboratory workflow practices for positive blood culture bottles: a cross-sectional survey among hospitals in the Autonomous Community of Valencia, Spain.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood cultures are one of the most common and most important tests performed in clinical microbiology laboratories. Variables and technology that improve and speed the recovery of blood stream pathogens have been published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology since its inception in 1975. Despite the importance of blood cultures, little research has focused on the turnaround time of blood culture reports. In this issue of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Y. P. Tabak et al. (J Clin Microbiol 56:e00500-18, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00500-18) report the results of an investigation of Gram stain, organism identification, and susceptibility report turnaround times for 165,593 blood cultures from 13 laboratories. These data provide a starting point for clinical laboratories to establish targets for blood culture result reporting.
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.