ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2021
Laboratory and clinical impacts of an overnight laboratory service.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Q-linea ASTar rapid phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing and potential impact in patients with gram-negative bloodstream infections.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- The impact of positive microbiology results on adherence to antimicrobial stewardship post-prescription review and feedback (PAF) rounds in a quaternary referral center.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023Article
- Analysis of Blood Culture Collection and Laboratory Processing Practices in Israel.JAMA network open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Delayed initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy for sepsis is associated with increased mortality. Whilst automated blood culture machines operate continuously, this does not align with conventional staff working hours and so turn-around-times (TAT) for reporting gram stains to clinicians are 3-7 times longer for blood cultures that flag positive overnight. We retrospectively compared laboratory TATs and clinical outcomes for blood cultures from 183 patients that flagged positive overnight during a 4-month period before and after the implementation of an overnight laboratory service. Enterobacterales and urinary tract infections were the most frequent pathogens and clinical syndrome respectively, and the prevalence of multi-resistant organisms was 15%. Compared with the pre-implementation period, the post-implementation period was associated with shorter median time from blood culture positivity to gram stain (7.4 vs 1.2 h), first genus level identification (7.2 vs 5.8 h) and first antimicrobial susceptibility result (24.1 vs 7.9 h). Similarly, the median time from blood culture positivity to clinicians first being informed was significantly shorter (9.2 vs 1.3 h). After removal of likely contaminants, 78% of patients were on effective empiric antimicrobials and for patients on ineffective empiric antimicrobials, effective therapy was initiated a median of 3.2 h sooner during the post-implementation period, without impact on mortality. Implementation of an overnight laboratory service was associated with significantly faster TAT for reporting blood culture results and more prompt initiation of effective antimicrobials for patients receiving ineffective empiric therapy, improving attainment of sepsis management goals.
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.