Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31044313›Full record

ReviewCurrent infectious disease reports2019

Advances in Diagnostic Testing that Impact Infection Prevention and Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs.

Kaede V Sullivan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current infectious disease reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Kaede V SullivanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Temple University Health System, Temple University Hospital, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, 3401 N. Broad St., Room A2 F329, Philadelphia, PA, 19140, USA. kaede.ota@tuhs.temple.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe primary purpose of this review is to provide a summary of new and emerging laboratory technologies and testing platforms that impact infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship programs. This review also summarizes available data describing the clinical impact of implementing these new technologies. RECENT

findingsWhile there is ample evidence that rapid organism identification technologies for positive blood cultures can ameliorate antimicrobial utilization, an assay that also provides expedited antimicrobial susceptibility testing results is now available and its clinical impact is under investigation. For C. difficile infection diagnosis, data related to performance and impact of "ultrasensitive" toxin assays is emerging in the literature although their role in C. difficile infection diagnosis remains unclear. For hospital-acquired pneumonia, a variety of rapid, automated, multiplexed, "pneumonia" panels have become commercially available and may impact surveillance definitions for ventilator-associated events. Finally, recent FDA clearance of various biochemical and molecular carbapenemase detection tests will facilitate rapid characterization of carbapenem-resistant organisms. Innovations in infectious diseases diagnostics have been making swift strides, broadening diagnostic scope; increasing accuracy and sensitivity; and reducing turnaround time. Many of these innovations directly impact infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship operations. Close collaboration between infection control, antimicrobial stewardship, and the microbiology laboratory is necessary to ensure that new tests improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Diagnostic testInfection preventionStewardship

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.