ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2025
Delving into discrepancies, a single-center experience with Accelerate Pheno for gram-negative bacteremia, a rapid phenotypic susceptibility testing method.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2025. 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.
- Emerging technologies for rapid phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing of clinical isolates of bacteria.Journal of clinical 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Discrepancies or inaccuracies between testing methods can create confusion or lead to clinical harm if antibiotics are inappropriately chosen. We report our clinical experience using the Accelerate Pheno™ followed by routine automated susceptibilities by the Vitek®2 for positive blood cultures with gram-negative rods. Design: This was a retrospective review of positive gram-negative blood cultures, including comparison of susceptibility testing results and impact on clinical care. Setting: Academic teaching hospital. Patients participants: All patients admitted to the hospital with gram-negative bacteremia from January 2020 to December 2022. Methods: Microbiology was reviewed for discrepancies as defined by very major errors (VMEs), major errors (MEs), and minor errors (mEs). Clinical charts were reviewed for antibiotic therapy. Results: Positive blood cultures with gram-negative rods were included (n = 262). Between these two methods, overall essential agreement was 93.7% (2162/2304) and categorical agreement 93.5% (2159/2306). There were 147 discrepancies noted, including 6 VMEs, 25 MEs, and 116 mEs accounting for 96 patients. Antibiotic choice was changed in 8 patients due to perceived suboptimal empiric therapy based on the rapid susceptibility results. Conclusions: The Accelerate Pheno tended to over-call resistance compared to the Vitek®2. Few patients (8) received the incorrect antibiotic based on the Pheno result. Stewardship programs may choose to optimize their rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing reporting to help minimize confusion and guide appropriate antibiotic selection.
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.