ArticleBioMed research international2019
Integrating Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing: A Simple and Rapid Approach to Reduce the Turnaround Time in the Management of Blood Cultures.
Article in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D-Printed Dip Slides Miniaturize Bacterial Identification and Antibiotic Susceptibility Tests Allowing Direct Mastitis Sample Analysis.Micromachines · 2022Article
- Galaxy ASIST: A web-based platform for mapping and assessment of global standards of antimicrobial susceptibility: A case study inFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated a rapid bacterial identification (rID) and a rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing by disk diffusion (rAST) from positive blood culture to overcome the limitations of the conventional methods and reduce the turnaround time in bloodstream infection diagnostics. The study included hemocultures flagged as positive by bacT/ALERT®, identification by MALDI-TOF MS, and rAST. The results were compared to identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results by current standard methods, after 24 h incubation. For rAST categorical agreement (CA), very major errors (VME), major errors (ME), and minor errors (mE) were calculated. A total of 524 bacterial samples isolated from blood cultures were obtained, including 246 Gram-negative (GN) and 278 Gram-positive (GP) aerobes. The overall concordance of rID was 88.6%, and it was highest among GN (96%). A total of 2196 and 1476 antimicrobial agent comparisons were obtained for GN and GP, respectively. Evaluation of rAST, CA, VME, ME, and mE disclosed 97.7, 0.7, 0.5, and 1.1% for GN and 98.0, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.8% for GP, respectively. Meropenem CA, VME, and ME were 98.3, 0.5, and 0.5%, respectively; mE was not observed. Oxacillin CA, ME, and mE were 97.4, 1.6, and 0.6%, respectively; VME was not observed. Overall, kappa scores of the results of the comparisons demonstrated the high agreement between rAST and the standard method. Identification and AST of aerobic bacteria from positive blood cultures after a short period of incubation on solid blood agar is a fast and reliable method that may improve the management of bloodstream infections.
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.