ArticlePloS one2023
Factors impacting the pre-analytical quality of blood cultures-Analysis at a tertiary medical center.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Designing an antimicrobial stewardship curriculum for nurses to strengthen knowledge and clinical practice.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Situation and questions regarding the practice of blood cultures in paediatric patients: an opinion paper.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Review
- Quantitative association of blood culture volume with contaminant and pathogen recovery.Infectious medicine · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Multimodal Intervention to Improve Blood Culture Collection in a Tertiary Care Hospital.Cureus · 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
15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood cultures (BC) are critical for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections, pathogen identification, and resistance testing. Guidelines recommend a blood volume of 8-10 mL per bottle as lower volumes result in decreased sensitivity. We aimed to evaluate factors for non-adherence to recommended volumes and assess the effects on diagnostic performance.
methodsFrom February to April 2020, we measured collected blood volumes by weighing all BC containers from inpatient samples at the University Hospital Basel. Information on BC volumes was merged with clinical and microbiological data, as well as nursing staff schedules. We analyzed factors associated with (i) BC sampling volume, (ii) reaching recommended volumes (≥8 mL), (iii) BC positivity, and (iv) time to positivity using linear and generalized linear mixed effect models.
resultsWe evaluated a total of 4'118 BC bottles collected from 686 patients. A total of 1'495 (36.3%) of all bottles contained the recommended filling volume of ≥8 mL. Using a central venous and arterial catheter for drawing blood resulted in an increase of filling volume by 0.26 mL (95% CI 0.10, 0.41) and 0.50 mL (95% CI 0.31, 0.69) compared to peripheral venipuncture, respectively. Each additional nursing staff working at the time of blood drawing was associated with 6% higher odds of achieving the recommended filling volume. We found no significant correlation between the filling volume and the positivity rate.
conclusionOur results indicate critical pre-analytical quality markers linked to BC collection procedures to reach recommended collection volumes. No significant impact on the positivity rate was found.
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.