ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2019
Performance of a new combination of blood culture vials in sepsis detection: a 2-year retrospective comparison.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of bloodstream infection requires the optimum combination of media in an automated blood culture system for maximum recovery of pathogens with the earliest time to detection. In a previous work, we showed that for patients admitted to the Emergency Department of our hospital, the combination of BACTEC lytic anaerobic and BACTEC aerobic vials was more efficient than BACTEC anaerobic and BACTEC aerobic vial. In this study, we extended the work including a broader patient population, representative of all hospital. A total of 8629 cultures were collected during the pre-lytic phase, from 01 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 and 7940 cultures during the post-lytic phase, ranged from 01 July 2015 to 30 June 2016. The number of positive blood cultures was higher during the post-lytic phase (19.74%) than in the pre-lytic phase (17.52%), particularly for Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus spp., Enterococcus spp., and anaerobes. We also observed a significant decreased of the time to detection, with the mean and median in the post-lytic phase of 17.68 and 13.05 h compared with 19.49 and 14.47 h in the pre-lytic phase. Whereas the time to detection was the same for organisms recovered in the aerobic Plus bottles for both time periods, time to detection for the anaerobic lytic bottles was significantly faster than with the anaerobic Plus bottles. This study carried out on a long time observation reported that a simple modification of composition of blood culture set could lead to better results in bloodstream infection detection.
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.