ArticlePloS one2022
Time to positivity of Corynebacterium in blood culture: Characteristics and diagnostic performance.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing diagnosis of Bacillus cereus bacteremia using time to positivity: a retrospective observational study to differentiate true bacteremia from contamination.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Observational
- Clinical characteristics, antimicrobial resistance patterns, and outcomes of Corynebacterium bacteremia: a 15-year retrospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric bloodstream infections and alteration in antimicrobial resistance phenotypes in Gram-positive bacteria, 2020-2022.BMC pediatrics · 2024Article
- Comparison of bloodstream infections due to Corynebacterium striatum, MRSA, and MRSE.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Outcome of Corynebacterial Bloodstream Infection in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: A Brief Report and Systematic Review.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence of Corynebacterium in blood samples can indicate true bacteremia or contamination, thus complicating the diagnosis of true bacteremia. We aimed to evaluate the usefulness of time to positivity (TTP) in diagnosing true bacteremia and contamination in cases where Corynebacterium was isolated from blood samples. We compared the TTP of the true-bacteremia group (n = 77) with that of the contamination group (n = 88). For the true-bacteremia cases that had only one set of positive blood cultures (n = 14), considering clinical and bacteriological data, additional cultures were performed on blood or other specimens. The same Corynebacterium spp. as in blood were isolated from these specimens. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated, and the sensitivity and specificity of TTP were calculated for diagnosing true bacteremia. The median TTP of the true-bacteremia group (26.8 h) was shorter than that of the contamination group (43.3 h) (P < 0.0001). When considering TTP ≤ 25.0 h as true bacteremia, the sensitivity and specificity were 44.2% and 95.5%, respectively. Moreover, when considering TTP ≤ 69.4 h as true bacteremia, the sensitivity and specificity were 96.1% and 20.5%, respectively. Among the true-bacteremia groups with one set of positive blood cultures (n = 14), no case exhibited a TTP > 69.4 h. Only three cases showed TTP ≤ 25.0 h in the true-bacteremia group with one set of positive blood cultures. TTP > 69.4 h is likely to indicate contamination and may be useful to exclude true bacteremia in cases with one set of positive blood cultures. Meanwhile, diagnosing true bacteremia using the threshold of TTP 25.0 h would be difficult. Therefore, the clinical and bacteriological data are important for diagnosing bacteremia, especially in cases with TTP ≤ 69.4 h.
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.