ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2020
Compliance of clinical microbiology laboratories with recommendations for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: Data from a nationwide survey in Italy.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- End-to-End Timeliness of Blood Culture Diagnostics: A One-Month Observational Study of 5121 Bottles.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Comparative Assessment of Rapid Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods for Bloodstream Infections in a Non-24/7 Clinical Microbiology Laboratory.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Compliance of clinical microbiology laboratories with recommendations for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: Data from a nationwide survey in Italy.MicrobiologyOpen · 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 at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.