ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2024
Evaluation of three protocols for direct susceptibility testing for Gram-negative rods from flagged positive blood culture bottles.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- When Culture Results Don't Tell the Whole Story: A Practical Review of Antibiotics Pitfalls for Clinical Decision-Making.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- Rapid Bacterial Identification and Quantitative Antimicrobial Susceptibility Assessment from Positive Blood Cultures to Optimize Bloodstream Infection Management.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial Resistance inPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Genotypic and phenotypic strategies to detect antibiotic resistance in foodborne pathogens along the food processing chain.Current research in food science · 2026Review
- Evaluation of VITEK 2 and three protocols for direct susceptibility testing on Gram-negative bacilli from positive blood culture bottles.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Genomic dataset of multidrug-resistant Klebsiella quasipneumoniae from Indonesia.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- What's old is new: leveraging existing antimicrobial susceptibility test methods for rapid results in patients with bloodstream infections.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Direct Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Gram-Negative Bacilli andMicroorganisms · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bloodstream infections are associated with high mortality, which can be reduced by targeted antibiotic therapy in the early stages of infection. Direct antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) from flagged positive blood cultures may facilitate the administration of early effective antimicrobials much before the routine AST. This study aimed to evaluate three different direct AST protocols for Gram-negative rods from flagged positive blood culture broths. Blood culture broths showing Gram-negative rods only were subjected to direct AST by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute-recommended direct disk diffusion (protocol A). Additionally, automated AST (protocol B) and Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion (protocol C) were performed with standard inoculum prepared from bacterial pellets obtained by centrifuging blood culture broths in serum separator vials. For comparison, conventional AST of isolates from solid media subculture was also performed with Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion (reference standard) and the automated method. Overall, categorical agreements of protocols A, B, and C were 97.6%, 95.7%, and 95.9%, respectively. Among Enterobacterales, minor error, major error, and very major error rates of protocol B were 3.5%, 0.36%, and 0.43%, respectively, whereas minor error, major error, and very major error rates of protocol C were 3.4%, 0.72%, and 0.21%, respectively, and among non-fermenters, protocol B had a minor error rate of 6.5%, and protocol C had a minor error rate of 4.1% and major error rate of 1.9%. All three direct AST protocols demonstrated excellent categorical agreements with the reference method. Performance of protocols B and C between Enterobacterales and non-fermenters was not statistically different. IMPORTANCE: Bloodstream infections are associated with high mortality that can be reduced by targeted antibiotic therapy in the early stages of infection. Direct antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) from flagged positive blood cultures may facilitate the administration of early effective antimicrobials much before the routine AST. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute-recommended direct AST can be performed with a limited number of antibiotic disks only. On the other hand, using an automated system for direct AST will not only allow effective laboratory workflow with reduced turnaround time but also provide the minimum inhibitory concentration values of tested antibiotics. However, using expensive automated systems for direct AST may not be feasible for resource-limited laboratories. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the CLSI-recommended method and two other direct AST protocols (one with an automated system and the other with disk diffusion) for Gram-negative rods from flagged positive blood cultures.
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.