ArticleInfectious diseases & clinical microbiology2024
The Impact of Reporting the Same-Day Identification and Antibiotic Susceptibility Test Results on the Treatment of Bloodstream Infections.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- 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 · 2026Article
- An Evaluation of the ASTar Automated Antimicrobial Testing System for Gram-Negative Bacteria in Positive Blood Cultures.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Rapid Detection of Pathogens and Resistance Genes Grown in Blood Cultures with Two Multiplex Tandem Real-Time PCR Kits.Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.