ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2024
The foundation for the microbiology laboratory's essential role in diagnostic stewardship: an ASM Laboratory Practices Subcommittee report.
Review 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic stewardship perceptions and practices among microbiology laboratories: a national survey from the American Society for Microbiology.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Finding the middle way: rethinking cGMP for sterility testing of cellular therapy products in minimal manipulation settings.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Stewardship Trends and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Bacteria Isolated in Zambia: A Five-Year Retrospective Study (2020-2024).Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparing sputum, nasopharyngeal swabs, and combined samples for respiratory bacterial detection using multiplex PCR.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Tri-layer microbiology for LMIC Hospitals: linking syndromic panels with reflex culture and targeted sequencing for real world care - a narrative review.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesReview
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
Diagnostic stewardship (DxS) has gained traction in recent years as a cross-disciplinary method to improve the quality of patient care while appropriately managing resources within the healthcare system. Clinical microbiology laboratorians have been highly engaged in DxS efforts to guide best practices with conventional microbiology tests and more recently with molecular infectious disease diagnostics. Laboratories can experience resistance to their role in DxS, especially when the clinical benefits, motivations for interventions, and underlying regulatory requirements are not clearly conveyed to stakeholders. Clinical laboratories must not only ensure ethical practices but also meet obligatory requirements to steward tests responsibly. In this review, we aim to support clinical microbiology laboratorians by providing the background and resources that demonstrate the laboratory's essential role in DxS. The heart of this review is to collate regulatory and accreditation requirements that, in essence, mandate DxS practices as a long-standing, core element of high-quality laboratory testing to deliver the best possible patient care. While examples of the clinical impact of DxS are plentiful in the literature, here, we focus on the operational and regulatory justification for the laboratory's role in stewardship activities.
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.