Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39320097›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2024

The American Society for Microbiology collaboration with the CDC Laboratory Medicine Best Practices initiative for evidence-based laboratory medicine.

Alice S Weissfeld, Vickie Baselski, Nancy E Cornish, Colleen S Kraft, Mark T LaRocco, Peggy McNult, Irving Nachamkin, James Scott Parrott, Sandra S Richter, Matthew Rubinstein and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

15 authors.

Alice S Weissfeld *Microbiology Specialists Incorporated, Houston, Texas, USA.
Vickie Baselski *The ASM 7, The American Society for Microbiology's Committee on Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine, Washington,DC, USA.
Nancy E Cornish *The ASM 7, The American Society for Microbiology's Committee on Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine, Washington,DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6513-4478
Colleen S Kraft *The ASM 7, The American Society for Microbiology's Committee on Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine, Washington,DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1757-8477
Mark T LaRoccoM.T.L. Consulting, Erie, Pennsylvania, USA.
Peggy McNultAmerican Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, USA.
Irving NachamkinPerelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
James Scott ParrottCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Sandra S RichterCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Matthew RubinsteinRutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Michael A Saubolle *The ASM 7, The American Society for Microbiology's Committee on Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine, Washington,DC, USA.
Robert L Sautter *The ASM 7, The American Society for Microbiology's Committee on Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine, Washington,DC, USA.
James W SnyderUniversity of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4824-762X
Joanna TalianoCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Library Science Branch, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Donna M Wolk *The ASM 7, The American Society for Microbiology's Committee on Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine, Washington,DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2828-5135

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

SUMMARYClinical medicine has embraced the use of evidence for patient treatment decisions; however, the evaluation strategy for evidence in laboratory medicine practices has lagged. It was not until the end of the 20th century that the Institute of Medicine (IOM), now the National Academy of Medicine, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Laboratory Systems (CDC DLS), focused on laboratory tests and how testing processes can be designed to benefit patient care. In collaboration with CDC DLS, the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) used an evidence review method developed by the CDC DLS to develop a program for creating laboratory testing guidelines and practices. The CDC DLS method is called the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP) initiative and uses the A-6 cycle method. Adaptations made by ASM are called Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines (EBLMPG). This review details how the ASM Systematic Review (SR) Processes were developed and executed collaboratively with CDC's DLS. The review also describes the ASM transition from LMBP to the organization's current EBLMPG, maintaining a commitment to working with agencies in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other partners to ensure that EBLMPG evidence is readily understood and consistently used.

Indexed as

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.Clinical Laboratory TechniquesEvidence-Based MedicineMicrobiologyHumansIntersectoral CollaborationPractice Guidelines as TopicSocieties, ScientificSystematic Reviews as TopicUnited Statesevidence-based medicinemeta-analysisoutcomessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39320097
PMCPMC11629616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.