Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39005703›Full record

ArticleInfectious diseases & clinical microbiology2024

The Impact of Reporting the Same-Day Identification and Antibiotic Susceptibility Test Results on the Treatment of Bloodstream Infections.

Mervenur Demir, Gülçin Telli-Dizman, Gülşen Hazırolan, Ömrüm Uzun, Gökhan Metan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Direct MALDI-TOF MS identification and EUCAST RAST from positive blood cultures: impact on turnaround time in bloodstream infections.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Mervenur DemirDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9229-0874
Gülçin Telli-DizmanDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8195-3345
Gülşen HazırolanDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4546-9729
Ömrüm UzunDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4721-0139
Gökhan MetanDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2676-4557

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The rise of antibiotic-resistant organisms necessitates the implementation of rapid identification (ID) and antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) methods for patient management. We aimed to analyze how rapid ID and AST reporting influenced clinicians' treatment decisions. Materials and Methods: Bacteria were identified directly from positive blood cultures (BC) using serum separator tubes and MALDI-TOF MS. EUCAST rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing (RAST) method was performed for AST. The impact of rapid ID and AST reports on clinician treatment decisions was evaluated through clinical documentation. The appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy and interventions was assessed according to institutional antimicrobial prescribing guidelines, AST results, and clinical data. Results: A total of 128 BC bottles from 86 patients underwent processing. The rapid ID method was successful in 105 (82.1%) bottles obtained from 76 patients. The rapid ID results were reviewed by the Infectious Diseases Team on the same day for 55 (72.4%) of the 76 patients. Following the evaluation, new treatments or interventions were recommended for 28 (36.8%) patients. RAST results were available for 24 patients. The susceptibility profile of seven patients was assessed by the Infectious Diseases Team on the same day. Antimicrobial treatment was escalated in four cases, and de-escalation was made in two based on RAST results. If all rapid results had been assessed, adjustments could have been made for eight (10.5%) and eleven (14.5%) more patients, according to ID and RAST results, respectively. Conclusion: Implementation of rapid ID and AST may contribute to patient management. Although rapid reporting was made, some results were not evaluated by the clinician on the same day, indicating that communication between the clinician and the laboratory needs to be strengthened.

Indexed as

antimicrobial stewardshipbloodstream infectionrapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Identifiers

PMID39005703
PMCPMC11243774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.