ArticlePloS one2022
Considerations in evaluating equipment-free blood culture bottles: A short protocol for use in low-resource settings.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of alternative blood culture systems in detecting pathogenic bacteria: a multi-site, observational prospective study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of the BactInsight simplified blood culture system developed for resource-limited settings using a simulated test design.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative Performance Evaluation of Continuous Monitoring Blood Culture Systems Using Simulated Septic Specimen.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Low-cost in-house re-formulated brain heart infusion medium for effective planktonic growth and early detection of bloodstream bacterial pathogens.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of InTray Cassettes Directly from Blood Cultures for the Diagnosis of Sepsis in Clinical Bacteriology Laboratories as an Alternative to Classic Culture Media.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of new and old BacT/ALERT aerobic bottles for detection of Candida species.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Use of equipment-free, "manual" blood cultures is still widespread in low-resource settings, as requirements for implementation of automated systems are often not met. Quality of manual blood culture bottles currently on the market, however, is usually unknown. An acceptable quality in terms of yield and speed of growth can be ensured by evaluating the bottles using simulated blood cultures. In these experiments, bottles from different systems are inoculated in parallel with blood and a known quantity of bacteria. Based on literature review and personal experiences, we propose a short and practical protocol for an efficient evaluation of manual blood culture bottles, aimed at research or reference laboratories in low-resource settings. Recommendations include: (1) practical equivalence of horse blood and human blood; (2) a diverse selection of 10 to 20 micro-organisms to be tested (both slow- and fast-growing reference organisms); (3) evaluation of both adult and pediatric bottle formulations and blood volumes; (4) a minimum sample size of 120 bottles per bottle type; (5) a formal assessment of usability. Different testing scenarios for increasing levels of reliability are provided, along with practical tools such as worksheets and surveys that can be used by laboratories wishing to evaluate manual blood culture bottles.
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.