ArticlePloS one2023
Comparison of new and old BacT/ALERT aerobic bottles for detection of Candida species.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of BacT/ALERT PF Plus and PF pediatric blood culture bottles: A dual in vitro and clinical retrospective study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Comparative Performance Evaluation of Continuous Monitoring Blood Culture Systems Using Simulated Septic Specimen.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Recent Challenges in Diagnosis and Treatment of Invasive Candidiasis in Neonates.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA new version of aerobic blood culture media has been developed for the BacT/ALERT (bioMérieux) blood culture system. We evaluated the time to detection and yeast cell counts in positive blood cultures for each Candida spp. according to changes in media.
methodsIsolates from defibrinated horse blood were inoculated into three types of bottles: the old version of aerobic bottle, new version of aerobic bottle, and anaerobic bottle. All bottles were incubated in the BacT/ALERT Virtuo blood culture system. The time to detection was monitored for each bottle, and yeast cell counts were performed immediately after testing positive, determined via the plate count method. Clinical retrospective data of the candidemia samples before and after aerobic bottle change also were analyzed.
resultsThe median time to detection was 52.47 hours in the old aerobic bottles versus 19.92 hours in the new aerobic bottles (P < 0.001) for Candida glabrata, and standard and clinical strains showed similar results. C. albicans (27.6 to 24.95 hours) and C. guilliermondii (28.92 to 26.9 hours) had shorter time to detection. However, C. auris (25.43 to 28.25 hours) had a longer time to detection in the new aerobic bottle. The retrospective clinical analysis showed a significant decrease in time to detection (45.0 to 19.4 hours) for C. glabrata, which is consistent with our simulated study result for C. glabrata. As a result of analysis including all blood specimens, C. tropicalis showed a significant delay in time to detection in new aerobic bottles. In an analysis limited to peripheral blood specimens, the time to detection of C. parapsilosis was longer in new aerobic bottles than in old aerobic bottles.
conclusionMost Candida species did not show remarkable TTD differences, but TTD of C. glabrata was markedly reduced in the New FA Plus bottle. The reduction of time to detection enables faster detection and therapeutic approach for C. glabrata infections.
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.