ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2024
Getting rapid diagnostic test data into the appropriate hands by leveraging pharmacy staff and a clinical surveillance platform: a case study from a US community hospital.
Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid commercial CTX-M diagnostics: Performance, limitations and clinical impact.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
- Rapid Diagnostics and Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Bloodstream Infections: A Narrative Review and Proposed Clinical Actionability Framework.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
- Impact of Multiplex PCR on Diagnosis of Bacterial and Fungal Infections and Choice of Appropriate Antimicrobial Therapy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo outline the procedural implementation and optimization of rapid diagnostic test (RDT) results for bloodstream infections (BSIs) and to evaluate the combination of RDTs with real-time antimicrobial stewardship team (AST) support plus clinical surveillance platform (CSP) software on time to appropriate therapy in BSIs at a single health system.
methodsBlood culture reporting and communication were reported for four time periods: (i) a pre-BCID [BioFire® FilmArray® Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel] implementation period that consisted of literature review and blood culture notification procedure revision; (ii) a BCID implementation period that consisted of BCID implementation, real-time results notification via CSP, and creation of a treatment algorithm; (iii) a post-BCID implementation period; and (iv) a BCID2 implementation period. Time to appropriate therapy metrics was reported for the BCID2 time period.
resultsThe mean time from BCID2 result to administration of effective antibiotics was 1.2 h (range 0-7.9 h) and time to optimal therapy was 7.6 h (range 0-113.8 h) during the BCID2 Panel implementation period. When comparing time to optimal antibiotic administration among patients growing ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacterales, the BCID2 Panel group (mean 2.8 h) was significantly faster than the post-BCID Panel group (17.7 h; P = 0.0041).
conclusionsChallenges exist in communicating results to the appropriate personnel on the healthcare team who have the knowledge to act on these data and prescribe targeted therapy against the pathogen(s) identified. In this report, we outline the procedures for telephonic communication and CSP support that were implemented at our health system to distribute RDT data to individuals capable of assessing results, enabling timely optimization of antimicrobial therapy.
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.