Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34180598›Full record

ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2021

Direct detection of ESKAPEc pathogens from whole blood using the T2Bacteria Panel allows early antimicrobial stewardship intervention in patients with sepsis.

Pavel Drevinek, Jakub Hurych, Milena Antuskova, Jan Tkadlec, Jan Berousek, Zuzana Prikrylova, Jiri Bures, Jaromir Vajter, Martin Soucek, Jan Masopust and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06069206 (Effect of Direct-from-blood Bacterial Testing on Antibiotic Administration and Clinical Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

NCT06069206 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Direct-from-blood Bacterial Testing on Antibiotic Administration and Clinical Outcomes: A Learning Healthcare Pragmatic Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorVanderbilt University Medical CenterRan2023 to 2025Enrolled500ConditionsBloodstream Infection, Sepsis Bacterial, MRSA Bacteremia, VancomycinArmsT2Bacteria® Panel (direct-from-blood testing), Usual Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Effect of Direct-from-blood Bacterial Testing on Antibiotics Administration in Adults Presenting With Acute Infection: A Randomized Trial.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Rapid and Simple Approaches for Diagnosis ofPolish journal of microbiology · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pavel DrevinekDepartment of Medical Microbiology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-8994-5240
Jakub HurychDepartment of Medical Microbiology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-9813-5290
Milena AntuskovaDepartment of Medical Microbiology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jan TkadlecDepartment of Medical Microbiology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-0892-924X
Jan BerousekDepartment of Anesthesiology and ICM, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Zuzana PrikrylovaDepartment of Anesthesiology and ICM, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jiri BuresDepartment of Anesthesiology and ICM, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jaromir VajterDepartment of Anesthesiology and ICM, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Martin SoucekDepartment of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jan MasopustDepartment of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Vendula MartinkovaDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jaroslava AdamkovaDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Veronika HysperskaDepartment of Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Eliska BebrovaDepartment of Medical Microbiology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Charles University · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the microbiological diagnosis of bloodstream infections (BSI), blood culture (BC) is considered the gold standard test despite its limitations such as low sensitivity and slow turnaround time. A new FDA-cleared and CE-marked platform utilizing magnetic resonance to detect amplified DNA of the six most common and/or problematic BSI pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Escherichia coli; referred to as ESKAPEc) is available and may shorten the time to diagnosis and potentially improve antimicrobial utilization. Whole blood samples from hospitalized patients with clinical signs of sepsis were analyzed using the T2Bacteria Panel (T2Biosystems) and compared to simultaneously collected BC. Discrepant results were evaluated based on clinical infection criteria, combining supporting culture results and the opinion of treating physicians. A total of 55 samples from 53 patients were evaluated. The sensitivity and specificity of the T2Bacteria panel was 94% (16 out of 17 detections of T2Bacteria-targeted organisms) and 100%, respectively, with 36.4% (8 of 22) causes of BSI detected only by this method. The T2Bacteria Panel detected pathogens on average 55 hours faster than standard BC. In our study, 9 of 15 patients with positive T2Bacteria Panel results received early-targeted antibiotic therapy and/or modification of antimicrobial treatment based on T2Bacteria Panel findings. Given the high reliability, faster time to detection, and easy workflow, the technique qualifies as a point-of-care testing approach.

Indexed as

Acinetobacter baumanniiAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipBacteremiaBloodBlood CultureEnterococcus faeciumEscherichia coliHumansKlebsiella pneumoniaeProspective StudiesPseudomonas aeruginosaStaphylococcus aureusAnti-Bacterial Agentsantimicrobial stewardshipbacteremiablood culturerapid diagnosticssepsisT2MR

Identifiers

PMID34180598
PMCPMC8209282
OpenAlexW3172375562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.