ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2024
A multicenter evaluation of a novel microfluidic rapid AST assay for Gram-negative bloodstream infections.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Direct rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) from positive blood cultures: Recent advances, challenges, and future directions.Practical laboratory medicine · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation of EUCAST RAST and QuickMIC for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing of carbapenem-resistant organisms directly from positive blood cultures.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- A review of bloodstream infections-pathogens, pathogenesis, diagnostic strategies, treatment methods-challenges and future aspects.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
- [Advances in integrated antimicrobial resistance diagnostics: quantitative, qualitative and AI-driven approaches].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Multicenter evaluation of the QuickMICEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Rapid AST in practice - a workflow analysis of the QuickMICFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of QuickMIC system for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Gram-negative pathogens from positive blood cultures, including strains producing extended-spectrum β-lactamases and carbapenemases.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- An Evaluation of the ASTar Automated Antimicrobial Testing System for Gram-Negative Bacteria in Positive Blood Cultures.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Detecting antibiotic resistance: classical, molecular, advanced bioengineering, and AI-enhanced approaches.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Common phenotypic methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of bacteria are slow, labor intensive, and display considerable technical variability. The QuickMIC system provides rapid AST using a microfluidic linear gradient. Here, we evaluate the performance of QuickMIC at four different laboratories with regard to speed, precision, accuracy, and reproducibility in comparison to broth microdilution (BMD). Spiked ( IMPORTANCE: Increasing antimicrobial resistance underscores the need for new diagnostic solutions to guide therapy, but traditional antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is often inadequate in time-critical diseases such as sepsis. This work presents a novel and rapid AST system with a rapid turnaround of results, which may help reduce the time to guided therapy, possibly allowing early de-escalation of broad-spectrum empirical therapy as well as rapid adjustments to treatments when coverage is lacking.
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.