Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33298605›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2021

The Pediatric Endotracheal Aspirate Culture Survey (PETACS): Examining Practice Variation across Pediatric Microbiology Laboratories in the United States.

Andrea M Prinzi, Sarah K Parker, Donna J Curtis, Sonja I Ziniel

Abstract read
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 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Diagnostic Stewardship in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2022
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrea M PrinziClinical Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA Andrea.prinzi@cuanschutz.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2949-5484
Sarah K ParkerPediatric Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Donna J CurtisPediatric Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Sonja I ZinielPediatric Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.

Funding

NIH Prior Approval Process ProfessionalUL1TR002535 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI SOKOL, RONALD J. · 2018 to 2022
$51.1M
NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002533 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI CICUTTO, LISA · 2018 to 2022
$3.0M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002533NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002535
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the absence of evidence-based laboratory guidelines, the workup and interpretation of tracheal aspirate (TA) cultures remains controversial and confusing within the fields of clinical microbiology, infectious diseases, and critical care. Between 22 January and 24 February 2020, we conducted a national, web-based survey of microbiology laboratory personnel in free-standing pediatric hospitals and adult hospitals containing pediatric facilities regarding the laboratory practices used for TA specimens. We hypothesized there would be substantial center-level variability in laboratory processing of TA cultures. The response rate for the survey was 48% (73/153). There was a high level of variability in the criteria used for all processes, including specimen receipt, Gram staining, and culture reporting. Most respondents (77%) reported they do not reject TA specimens based on Gram stain criteria, and 44% of labs do not require that a minimum number of Gram stain fields be reviewed prior to reporting results. Overall, nonacademic hospital laboratories and pediatric-only laboratories are more likely to identify, report, and perform susceptibility testing on organisms from TA cultures, regardless of organism quantity or predominance. There is a substantial amount of process variability among pediatric microbiology laboratories that affects TA culture reporting, and which guides treatment decisions. This variation within and among labs makes clinical outcome studies related to TA cultures difficult to interpret. This study serves as a pragmatic step in informing the development of robust clinical guidelines. Clinical outcome and implementation studies are necessary to determine the effectiveness of guidelines for TA cultures.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesLaboratoriesAdultChildHumansMicrobiologyStaining and LabelingSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Statesbacteriologyclinical laboratoryclinical microbiologycritical carepneumoniarespiratory pathogensstewardshiptracheal aspirate

Identifiers

PMID33298605
PMCPMC8106719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.