ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2023
Comparison of 3 diagnostic platforms for identification of bacteria and yeast from positive blood culture bottles.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of routine blood culture methods and multiplex quantitative PCR for detecting pathogens in simulated polymicrobial blood cultures.Journal of medical microbiology · 2026Article
- Accuracy of two Sepsityper MALDI-TOF MS methods for bacterial identification in bloodstream infections in dogs, foals, and calves using Bayesian latent class model.The veterinary quarterly · 2025Article
- Candida.JHLT open · 2025Article
- Clinical evaluation of an in-house Xpert Lysate-based Method combined with MALDI-TOF MS for the rapid identification of positive blood cultures.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparative Assessment of Rapid Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods for Bloodstream Infections in a Non-24/7 Clinical Microbiology Laboratory.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Getting Up to Speed: Rapid Pathogen and Antimicrobial Resistance Diagnostics in Sepsis.Microorganisms · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Managing bloodstream infections requires fast and accurate diagnostics. Culture-based diagnostic methods for identification from positive blood culture require 24-hour subculture, potentially delaying time to appropriate therapy. Positive blood cultures were collected (n = 301) from September 2021 to August 2022 at the University of Maryland Medical Center. Platforms compared were BioFire® BCID2, Sepsityper®, and short-term culture. For monomicrobial cultures, FilmArray® BCID2 identified 88.3% (241/273) of pathogens. Rapid Sepsityper® identified 76.9% (210/273) of pathogens. Sepsityper® extraction identified 82.4% (225/273) of pathogens. Short-term culture identified 83.5% (228/273) of pathogens. For polymicrobial cultures, Sepsityper®, short-term culture, and BioFire® BCID2 had complete identifications at 10.7% (3/28), 0%, and 92.9% (26/28), respectively. Time-to-results for Rapid Sepsityper®, Sepsityper® extraction, BioFire® BCID2, and Short-term culture were 35, 52, 65, and 306 minutes, respectively. Performance of these platforms can reduce time-to-results and may help effectively treat bloodstream infections faster. Accuracy, time-to-result, and hands-on time are important factors when evaluation diagnostic platforms.
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.