ArticleCommunications medicine2024
Rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections using a culture-free phenotypic platform.
Article in Communications medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- An NGS-assisted diagnostic workflow for culture-independent detection of bloodstream pathogens and prediction of antimicrobial resistances in sepsis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Trial
- A rapid approach to detect methicillin-resistant and susceptibleMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Rapid and robust diagnosis of bloodstream infections by single-cell analysis.Science advances · 2026Article
- UnmaskingPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Rapid Bacterial Identification and Quantitative Antimicrobial Susceptibility Assessment from Positive Blood Cultures to Optimize Bloodstream Infection Management.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- An integrated immunoinformatic approach to design a novel multiepitope chimeric vaccine againstFrontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBloodstream infections (BSIs) are a life-threatening acute medical condition and current diagnostics for BSIs suffer from long turnaround time (TAT). Here we show the validation of a rapid detection-analysis platform (RDAP) for the diagnosis of BSIs performed on clinical blood samples
methodsThe validation was performed on a cohort of 59 clinical blood samples, including positive culture samples, which indicated confirmed bloodstream infections, and negative culture samples. The bacteria in the positive culture samples included Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogenic species. RDAP is based on an electrochemical sandwich immunoassay with voltage-controlled signal amplification, which provides an ultra-low limit of detection (4 CFU/mL), allowing the platform to detect and identify bacteria without requiring culture and perform phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) with only 1-2 h of antibiotic exposure. The preliminary diagnostic performance of RDAP was compared with that of standard commercial diagnostic technologies.
resultsUsing a typical clinical microbiology laboratory diagnostic workflow that involved sample culture, agar plating, bacteria identification using matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight (MALDI TOF) mass spectrometry, and AST using MicroScan as a clinical diagnostic reference, RDAP showed diagnostic accuracy of 93.3% and 95.4% for detection-identification and AST, respectively. However, RDAP provided results at least 15 h faster.
conclusionsThis study shows the preliminary feasibility of using RDAP to rapidly diagnose BSIs, including AST. Limitations and potential mitigation strategies for clinical translation of the present RDAP prototype are discussed. The results of this clinical feasibility study indicate an approach to provide near real-time diagnostic information for clinicians to significantly enhance the treatment outcome of BSIs.
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.