ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022
The comparative accuracy of pooled vs. individual blood culture sampling methods for diagnosis of catheter-related bloodstream infection.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Diagnostic Stewardship and Blood Culture Use in a Pediatric Medical Center.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Direct Disk Diffusion Testing and Antimicrobial Stewardship for Gram-Negative Bacteremia in the Context of High Multidrug Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCatheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and cost of treatment in critically ill patients. A differential time to positivity (DTP) of 120 min or more between blood cultures obtained through the catheter vs. peripheral vein is an indicator of CRBSI with high sensitivity and specificity. However, it is no clear whether pooled sampling would be as efficient as individual sampling in order to reduce costs, contamination, or anemia.
methodsThis was a prospective diagnostic study conducted at the medical ICU and semi-ICU of Khon Kaen University's Srinagarind Hospital in Thailand from May 2020 to November 2021. Fifty patients with triple-lumen central venous catheters (CVCs) who were clinically suspected of CRBSI were enrolled. 15 mL of blood was drawn through each catheter lumen, 10 mL of which was inoculated into three blood culture bottles, and the remaining 5 mL was pooled into a single bottle. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and time to positivity of the pooled blood cultures were calculated using individual blood cultures as a reference.
resultsOf the 50 patients enrolled, 14 (28%) were diagnosed with CRBSI, 57.9% of whom were infected with gram-negative bacteria as the causative pathogen (57.9%). Extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common organism. Sensitivity and specificity of the pooled blood sampling method were 69.23% (95% CI [0.44-0.94]) and 97.3% (95% CI [0.92-1.02]), respectively. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.83 (95% CI [0.68-0.99]). A paired T-Test to compare time to positivity of the pooled blood bottle and the first positive culture from the individual bottles indicated statistical significance (14.9 and 12.4 h, respectively). The mean difference was 2.5 [0.9-4.1] h, with a 95% CI and a p-value of 0.006.
conclusionPooled blood sampling results in a lower sensitivity and longer time to positivity for CRBSI diagnosis in patients with triple-lumen CVCs than individual lumen sampling. Trial registration Retrospectively registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry. The study was reviewed and approved on 08/03/2022. TCTR identification number is TCTR20220308002.
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.