Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37222587›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2023

Direct-from-Blood Detection of Pathogens: a Review of Technology and Challenges.

Linoj Samuel

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Effect of Direct-from-blood Bacterial Testing on Antibiotics Administration in Adults Presenting With Acute Infection: A Randomized Trial.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Linoj SamuelDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1703-6109
Henry Ford Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood cultures have been the staple of clinical microbiology laboratories for well over half a century, but gaps remain in our ability to identify the causative agent in patients presenting with signs and symptoms of sepsis. Molecular technologies have revolutionized the clinical microbiology laboratory in many areas but have yet to present a viable alternative to blood cultures. There has been a recent surge of interest in utilizing novel approaches to address this challenge. In this minireview, I discuss whether molecular tools will finally give us the answers we need and the practical challenges of incorporating them into the diagnostic algorithm.

Indexed as

SepsisBlood CultureHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLaboratoriesblood culturenext-generation sequencingPCRsepsis

Identifiers

PMID37222587
PMCPMC10358183
OpenAlexW4377940273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.