Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37674630›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2023

Diagnostic Stewardship: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Blood Collection Diversion Devices Used to Reduce Blood Culture Contamination and Improve the Accuracy of Diagnosis in Clinical Settings.

Gustavo Yano Callado, Vivian Lin, Elizabeth Thottacherry, Tássia Aporta Marins, Marinês Dalla Valle Martino, Jorge L Salinas, Alexandre R Marra

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Impact of Initial Specimen Diversion Technique on Blood Culture Contamination Rates.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Gustavo Yano CalladoFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6694-6569
Vivian LinFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Elizabeth ThottacherryDivision of Infectious Diseases & Geographic Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0896-3760
Tássia Aporta MarinsFaculdade de Medicina, Centro Universitário de Adamantina, Adamantina, São Paulo, Brazil.
Marinês Dalla Valle MartinoFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4801-7226
Jorge L SalinasDivision of Infectious Diseases & Geographic Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9193-820X
Alexandre R MarraFaculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7577-7688
Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein · BRStanford University · USSolução Ambiental Assessoria e Consultoria · BRUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Blood culture contamination may lead to misdiagnosis, overutilization of antibiotics, and prolonged length of stay. Blood specimen diversion devices can reduce contamination rates during blood culture collection procedures. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis evaluating the influence of blood specimen diversion devices in blood culture contamination rates. Methods: We searched Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science, from database inception to 1 March 2023, for studies evaluating the impact of a diversion device on blood culture contamination. Blood culture contamination was a positive blood culture with microorganisms not representative of true bacteremia, but rather introduced during collection or processing the blood sample. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled mean differences, and heterogeneity was assessed using the Results: Of 1768 screened studies, 12 met inclusion criteria for this systematic literature review. Of them, 9 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Studies were substantially heterogeneous, but stratified analyses considering only high-quality studies revealed that venipuncture using a diversion device was associated with a significant reduction in blood culture contamination in comparison to the standard procedure of collection (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.26 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .13-.54]; Conclusions: Blood culture diversion devices was associated with decreased contamination rates and could improve quality of care, reduce costs, and avoid unnecessary antibiotic use.

Indexed as

antimicrobial stewardshipblood culture contaminationdiagnostic stewardshipdiversion techniquesinitial specimen diversion device

Identifiers

PMID37674630
PMCPMC10478151
OpenAlexW4385753727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.