ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2022
Single-Site Sampling versus Multisite Sampling for Blood Cultures: a Retrospective Clinical Study.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinician perspectives on blood culture practice and diagnostic stewardship in regional emergency departments.Journal of medical microbiology · 2026Article
- Blood culture practices and microbiological capacity for sepsis diagnostics in Europe (2021-2022): a cross-sectional analysis of the European Sepsis Care Survey.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Recent advances in early screening and diagnosis of sepsis: a narrative review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Detection of relevant pathogens and contaminants in blood cultures after implementation of single-sampling strategy and initial specimen diversion.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Article
- Bloodstream infections in a rural hospital in Sierra Leone: a retrospective database study.Journal of medical microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparing contamination rates in paired blood culture sets with a single-time stamp vs multiple-time stamps.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Performance of T2Bacteria in relationship to blood cultures - a retrospective comparative study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Article
- Big Data in Gastroenterology Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Improving Blood Culture Quality with a Medical Staff Educational Program: A Prospective Cohort Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The performance of blood cultures (BCs) relies on optimal sampling. Sepsis guidelines do not specify which sampling protocol to use but recommend two sets of BC bottles, each set containing one aerobic and one anaerobic bottle. For the single-site sampling (SSS) protocol, only one venipuncture is performed for all four bottles. The predominating multisite sampling (MSS) protocol implies that BC bottles are collected from two separate venipuncture sites. The aim of this study was to compare SSS and MSS. Primary outcomes were number of BC sets collected, sample volume, and diagnostic performance. This was a retrospective clinical study comparing BC results in an emergency department before and after changing the sampling protocol to SSS from MSS. All BC samples were incubated in the BacT/Alert BC system. The analysis included 5,248 patients before and 5,364 patients after the implementation of SSS. There was a significantly higher proportion of positive BCs sampled with SSS compared with MSS, 1,049/5,364 (19.56%) and 932/5,248 (17.76%), respectively (
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.