Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33239383›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2021

Benefits Derived from Full Laboratory Automation in Microbiology: a Tale of Four Laboratories.

Karissa Culbreath, Heather Piwonka, John Korver, Mir Noorbakhsh

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Defining the value of medical microbiology consultation.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Karissa CulbreathDepartment of Infectious Disease, TriCore Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA karissa.culbreath@tricore.org.ORCID 0000-0003-2363-1553
Heather PiwonkaDepartment of Microbiology, Willis-Knighton Health Systems, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA.
John KorverDepartment of Microbiology, Hamilton Regional Medicine Laboratory Program, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Mir NoorbakhshDepartment of Microbiology, Sutter Health Shared Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA.
Hamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program · CASutter Health · USWillis-Knighton Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automation in clinical microbiology is starting to become more commonplace and reportedly offers several advantages over the manual laboratory. Most studies have reported on the rapid turnaround times for culture results, including times for identification of pathogens and their respective antimicrobial susceptibilities, but few have studied the benefits from a laboratory efficiency point of view. This is the first large, multicenter study in North America to report on the benefits derived from automation measured in full-time equivalents (FTE), FTE reallocation, productivity, cost per specimen, and cost avoidance. Pre- and post-full automation audits were done at 4 laboratories that have vastly different culture volumes, and results show that regardless of the size of the facility, improved efficiencies can be realized after implementation of full laboratory automation.

Indexed as

Automation, LaboratoryLaboratoriesAutomationHumansNorth Americaefficiencylaboratory automation

Identifiers

PMID33239383
PMCPMC8106725
OpenAlexW3109871469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.