ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Laboratory Automation in Microbiology: Impact on Turnaround Time of Microbiological Samples in COVID Time.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total Laboratory Automation Versus Manual Processing in Urine Culture Inoculation and Interpretation: A Hospital Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Impact of Total Laboratory Automation on Urine Culture Turnaround Time: A Comparative Study Between Manual Workflow and WASPLab™.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Collaborative Robotics, Mobile Platforms, and Total Laboratory Automation in Clinical Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evolving microbiology laboratories: mastering automated culture-based processes and molecular assays, an institutional experience.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Revolutionizing Laboratory Practices: Pioneering Trends in Total Laboratory Automation.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaboratory Automation (LA) is an innovative technology that is currently available for microbiology laboratories. LA can be a game changer by revolutionizing laboratory workflows through efficiency improvement and is also effective in the organization and standardization of procedures, enabling staff requalification. It can provide an important return on investment (time spent redefining the workflow as well as direct costs of instrumentation) in the medium to long term.
methodsHere, we present our experience with the WASPLab
resultsTAT recorded over time showed a significant decrease: from 97 h to 53.5 h (Δ43.5 h) for BCs and from 73 h to 58 h (Δ20 h) for BLs. Despite the introduction of the WASPLab
conclusionsLA can significantly enhance laboratory performance and, due to the significant reduction in reporting time, can have an effective impact on clinical choices and therefore on patient outcomes. Therefore, the initial costs of LA adoption must be considered worthwhile.
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.