ArticlePloS one2019
On-site blood culture incubation shortens the time to knowledge of positivity and microbiological results in septic patients.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contribution of Laboratory Centralisation to Delays in Blood Culture Handling and Determination of Results.Cureus · 2026Article
- Veterinary blood culture diagnostic testing: methodology and results from a German single-center study on dogs (2014-2022).Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Approaches to Invasive Candidiasis: Challenges and New Perspectives.Mycopathologia · 2025Review
- The Novel "RISC" Score as a Risk-prediction Model of Carbapenem-resistant Hospital-acquired Infections in Adult Sepsis Patients - A Prospective Observational Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- An assessment of the downstream implications of blood culture collection and transit.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2023Article
- Application of a sepsis flow chip (SFC) assay for the molecular diagnosis of paediatric sepsis.Access microbiology · 2023Article
- Analysis of Blood Culture Collection and Laboratory Processing Practices in Israel.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Impact of satellite blood culture on early diagnosis of sepsis.Journal of intensive medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Speed, Accuracy and Precision of the QuickMIC Rapid Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing Assay With Gram-Negative Bacteria in a Clinical Setting.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- Clinical microbiology laboratories and COVID-19: the calm before the storm.Future microbiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo determine whether on-site incubation of blood cultures at the intensive care unit (ICU) improves not only the time to incubation but also time to positivity, time to knowledge of positivity and time to results (identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing).
methodsThis observational single-centre study in ICU patients with severe sepsis and septic shock investigated the impact of blood culture incubation immediately on-site at the ICU (ICU group) by comparison with traditional processing in a remote laboratory (LAB group) on different time intervals of blood culture diagnostics from obtaining blood to clinician notification of final result. The effect of on-site incubation was evaluated in Kaplan-Meier estimates for the time to positivity, time to knowledge of positivity and time to microbiological results and a linear mixed model was built.
resultsA total of 3,549 blood culture sets from 657 ICU patients were analysed: 2,381 in the LAB group and 1,168 in the ICU group. Overall, 660 (18.6%) blood culture sets were positive and 2,889 (81.4%) sets remained negative. On-site incubation was associated with reduced time to knowledge of positivity (46.9 h [CI 43.4-50.8 h] vs. 28.0 h [CI 23.6-32.2 h], p < 0.001) and reduced time to result (61.4 h [CI 58.4-64.8 h] vs. 42.1 h [CI 39.1-47.5 h], p < 0.001). In blood cultures processed instantaneously at the ICU compared to incubation in the remote laboratory within 4 h, the time to microbiological result was significantly reduced by 8.5 h (p < 0.001). Pre-existing anti-infective therapy had no significant impact on diagnostic time intervals.
conclusionsInstantaneous incubation of blood cultures in the ICU compared to incubation in a remote laboratory significantly improves time to knowledge to positivity and time to result. These effects are even more pronounced during off-hours of the microbiological laboratory. The results underline the importance of 24/7 diagnostics to provide round-the-clock processing of blood culture samples in patients with sepsis and septic shock and an immediate to communication of the results to the clinicians.
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.