ArticleAccess microbiology2019
Comparison of semiquantitative and differential time to positivity methods for the diagnosis of central line-associated bloodstream infections in an intensive care unit.
Article in Access microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of semi-quantitative and quantitative methods for diagnosis of catheter-related blood stream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.Epidemiology and infection · 2020Pooled it
- Diagnostic and prognostic value of time to positivity in blood cultures. An opinion paper.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCentral line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) adversely affect patients' hospitalization.
aimWe compared semiquantitative roll plate (SQRP) and differential time to positivity (DTP) culture methods in diagnosing CLABSIs. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective study was conducted in an intensive care unit (ICU) from January 2013 to August 2014. All ICU patients with suspected CLABSIs were included. Blood cultures were taken, while central venous catheter (CVC) tips were cultured using the roll-tip method. DTP was considered positive if CVC lumen blood cultures became positive at least 2 h prior to concurrently drawn peripheral blood cultures with an identical micro-organism. SQRP method was considered positive when ≥15 c.f.u. of a micro-organism identical to that of blood cultures grew. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated.
resultsSQRP displayed high sensitivity (94.7 %), while DTP showed high specificity (82.5 %). SQRP combined with DTP displayed 100 % sensitivity and negative predictive value.
conclusionSQRP and DTP methods should be evaluated in combination.
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.