Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32012494›Full record

ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2020

Compliance of clinical microbiology laboratories with recommendations for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: Data from a nationwide survey in Italy.

Fabio Arena, Marta Argentieri, Paola Bernaschi, Giacomo Fortina, Vesselina Kroumova, Patrizia Pecile, Mario Rassu, Teresa Spanu, Gian Maria Rossolini, Carla Fontana

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 55% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Evaluation of a digital remote extraction analysis and monitoring tool for key performance indicators (KPIs) in the blood culture process.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Fabio ArenaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7265-3698
Marta ArgentieriMicrobiology Unit, Children's Hospital Bambino Gesù, Rome, Italy.
Paola BernaschiMicrobiology Unit, Children's Hospital Bambino Gesù, Rome, Italy.
Giacomo FortinaItalian Work Group for Infections in Critically Ill Patient (GliPac-AMCLI), Milan, Italy.
Vesselina KroumovaInfection Control Unit, University Hospital "Maggiore della Carità", Novara, Italy.
Patrizia PecileClinical Microbiology and Virology Unit, Florence Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Mario RassuMicrobiology and Virology Lab, AULS 8 Berica, S. Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5011-5426
Teresa SpanuInstitute of Microbiology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1864-5184
Gian Maria RossoliniClinical Microbiology and Virology Unit, Florence Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9386-0434
Carla FontanaDepartment Experimental Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2198-1947
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITBambino Gesù Children's Hospital · ITCentro Diagnostico Italiano · ITOspedale San Bortolo · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversità degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro” · ITUniversity of Foggia · ITUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2014, the Italian Working Group for Infections in Critically Ill Patient of the Italian Association of Clinical Microbiologists updated the recommendations for the diagnostic workflow for bloodstream infections (BSI). Two years after publication, a nationwide survey was conducted to assess the compliance with the updated recommendations by clinical microbiology laboratories. A total of 168 microbiologists from 168 laboratories, serving 204 acute care hospitals and postacute care facilities, were interviewed during the period January-October 2016 using a questionnaire consisting of nineteen questions which assessed the level of adherence to various recommendations. The most critical issues were as follows: (a) The number of sets of blood cultures (BC) per 1,000 hospitalization days was acceptable in only 11% of laboratories; (b) the minority of laboratories (42%) was able to monitor whether BCs were over or under-inoculated; (c) among the laboratories monitoring BC contamination (80%), the rate of contaminated samples was acceptable in only 12% of cases;(d) the Gram-staining results were reported within 1 hr since BC positivity in less than 50% of laboratories. By contrast, most laboratories received vials within 2-4 hr from withdrawal (65%) and incubated vials as soon as they were received in the laboratory (95%). The study revealed that compliance with the recommendations is still partial. Further surveys will be needed to monitor the situation in the future.

Indexed as

Blood CultureCritical IllnessDiagnostic ServicesGuideline AdherenceHumansItalyLaboratoriesSepsisSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkflowbacteraemiablood cultureslaboratory workflowqualitystandardization

Identifiers

PMID32012494
PMCPMC7142361
OpenAlexW3004100688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.