ArticleHeliyon2024
Microbiological performance and adherence in blood culture protocols: The role of a second anaerobic bottle.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Current landscape and challenges in anaerobic bloodstream infections: epidemiology, microbiology, and clinical management.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bacteremia represents high rates of morbidity and mortality, especially in developing countries, highlighting the need for a diagnostic method that allows prompt and appropriate patient treatment. This study compared microbiological performance and adherence of two blood culture protocols for the diagnosis of bacteremia. Methods: Quasi-experimental study conducted between June 2022 and February 2023. Two blood culture protocols were evaluated. Protocol 1 included two aerobic bottles and one anaerobic bottle. Protocol 2 included two aerobic and two anaerobic bottles. Protocols were analyzed in three phases: evaluation of protocol 1 (Phase 1); evaluation of protocol 1 plus educational activities for healthcare staff (Phase 2) and evaluation of protocol 2 (Phase 3). Results: 342 patients and 1155 blood culture bottles (732 aerobic and 423 anaerobic) were included. Positivity was 17.6 %, 22.8 % and 19.4 % in phases 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Among patients with bacteremia, 84.5 % had positive anaerobic bottles, with 9.9 % showing growth only in this bottle. The contamination rates were 1.9 %, 0.3 %, and 0.8 % for each phase, mainly in aerobic bottles. Median positivity time was 11 h for both bottes aerobic and anaerobic. Overall nursing adherence increased from 13.1 % in Phase 1, 25.9 % in Phase 2, and 28.1 % in Phase 3 ( Conclusions: The findings indicate that adding a second anaerobic bottle does not enhance blood culture positivity. Rather than increasing bottle quantity, staff training might be a more effective approach to optimize results.
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.