ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2020
Time to Result for Pathogen Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Bronchoalveolar Lavage and Endotracheal Aspirate Specimens in U.S. Acute Care Hospitals.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Syndromic Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction: The Impact on Microbial Yield in Nonventilator Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Comparison between the antimicrobial activity of colistin and ceftazidime-avibactam against multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care units of Kasr Al-Ainy hospitals.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Observational
- Antibiotic resistance inFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Fluorescent optotracers for bacterial and biofilm detection and diagnostics.Science and technology of advanced materials · 2023Review
- Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods for Blood Cultures and Their Clinical Impact.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of respiratory pathogens are critical to the management of patients with pneumonia to facilitate optimal antibiotic therapy selection. Few studies have examined the time to results (TTR) for this critical specimen, and such data can be valuable for benchmarking the current paradigm of diagnostic approaches. TTR for bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and endotracheal aspirate (ETA) specimens from hospitalized patients was evaluated using the Premier Healthcare Database, a comprehensive database of 194 U.S. hospitals. Times from specimen collection to reporting of organism ID/AST were evaluated and compared by specimen types and characteristics. A total of 79,662 (43,129 BAL; 36,533 ETA) specimens were included, of which 19.3% harbored no growth, 47.1% contained normal respiratory flora alone (including yeast), and 0.6% contained mycobacteria/molds. Potential bacterial pathogens (PBP) were recovered from 33.0%. ETA specimens had a higher proportion of specimens with isolation of PBP (39.2% versus 27.7%) and with normal respiratory flora (52.0% versus 43.0%) and were less likely to be negative (8.2% versus 28.6%) than BAL specimens (all
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.