ReviewCurrent infectious disease reports2019
Advances in Diagnostic Testing that Impact Infection Prevention and Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of short culture method for rapid bacterial identification of blood cultures via matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024Observational
- Point-of-Care and Rapid Tests for the Etiological Diagnosis of Respiratory Tract Infections in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Direct Testing for KPC-Mediated Carbapenem Resistance from Blood Samples Using a T2 Magnetic Resonance Based Assay.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Ultrasensitive Clostridioides difficile Toxin Testing for Higher Diagnostic Accuracy.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Review
- Multidrug Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: Resistance by Any Other Name Would Still be Hard to Treat.Current infectious disease reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
31044313What 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.