ArticleMicroorganisms2020
Classical Microbiological Diagnostics of Bacteremia: Are the Negative Results Really Negative? What is the Laboratory Result Telling Us About the "Gold Standard"?
Article in Microorganisms, 2020. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Association of procalcitonin levels with multidrug-resistant bloodstream infections: a prospective cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Automated radiosynthesis of [Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine · 2025Article
- Risk Factors Associated with Early and Late Postoperative Complications in Neonatal Patients with Esophageal Atresia.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Review
- Optimization and Testing of a Commercial Viability PCR Protocol to DetectMicroorganisms · 2024Article
- The Blood Microbiome and Health: Current Evidence, Controversies, and Challenges.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Bandemia as an Early Predictive Marker of Bacteremia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Observational
- Healthcare-Associated Laboratory-Confirmed Bloodstream Infections-Species Diversity and Resistance Mechanisms, a Four-Year Retrospective Laboratory-Based Study in the South of Poland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Mass Spectrometry Proteotyping-Based Detection and Identification ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Standard blood cultures require at least 24-120 h to be reported as preliminary positive. The objective of this study was to compare the reliability of Gram staining and fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) for detecting bacteria in otherwise negative blood culture bottles. Ninety-six sets were taken from patients with a diagnosis of sepsis. Six incomplete blood culture sets and eight blood cultures sets demonstrating positive growth were excluded. We performed Gram stain and FISH on 82 sets taken from post-operative septic patients: 82 negative aerobic blood cultures, 82 anaerobic blood cultures, and 82 blood samples, as well as 57 blood samples taken from healthy volunteers. From the eighty-two blood sets analyzed from the septic patients, Gram stain visualized bacteria in 62.2% of blood samples, 35.4% of the negative aerobic bottles, and in 31.7% of the negative anaerobic bottles. Utilizing FISH, we detected bacteria in 75.6%, 56.1%, and 64.6% respectively. Among the blood samples from healthy volunteers, FISH detected bacteria in 64.9%, while Gram stain detected bacteria in only 38.6%. The time needed to obtain the study results using Gram stain was 1 h, for FISH 4 h, and for the culture method, considering the duration of growth, 5 days. Gram stain and FISH allow quick detection of bacteria in the blood taken directly from a patient. Finding phagocytosed bacteria, which were also detected among healthy individuals, confirms the hypothesis that blood microbiome exists.
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.