ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2024
Benefit analysis of the auto-verification system of intelligent inspection for microorganisms.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, the automatic machine for microbial identification and antibiotic susceptibility tests has been introduced into the microbiology laboratory of our hospital, but there are still many steps that need manual operation. The purpose of this study was to establish an auto-verification system for bacterial naming to improve the turnaround time (TAT) and reduce the burden on clinical laboratory technologists. After the basic interpretation of the gram staining results of microorganisms, the appearance of strain growth, etc., the 9 rules were formulated by the laboratory technologists specialized in microbiology for auto-verification of bacterial naming. The results showed that among 70,044 reports, the average pass rate of auto-verification was 68.2%, and the reason for the failure of auto-verification was further evaluated. It was found that the main causes reason the inconsistency between identification results and strain appearance rationality, the normal flora in the respiratory tract and urine that was identified, the identification limitation of the mass spectrometer, and so on. The average TAT for the preliminary report of bacterial naming was 35.2 h before, which was reduced to 31.9 h after auto-verification. In summary, after auto-verification, the laboratory could replace nearly 2/3 of manual verification and issuance of reports, reducing the daily workload of medical laboratory technologists by about 2 h. Moreover, the TAT on the preliminary identification report was reduced by 3.3 h on average, which could provide treatment evidence for clinicians in advance.
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.