ArticlePloS one2025
Assessment of utilization of automated systems and laboratory information management systems in clinical microbiology laboratories in Thailand.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- How to utilize routine antimicrobial resistance surveillance data for local and national actions in an LMIC.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionClinical microbiology laboratories are essential for diagnosing and monitoring antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Here, we assessed the systems involved in generating, managing and analyzing blood culture data in these laboratories in an upper-middle-income country.
methodsFrom October 2023 to February 2024, we conducted a survey on the utilization of automated systems and laboratory information management systems (LIMS) for blood culture specimens in 2022 across 127 clinical microbiology laboratories (one each from 127 public referral hospitals) in Thailand. We categorized automated systems for blood culture processing into three steps: incubation, bacterial identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST).
resultsOf the 81 laboratories that completed the questionnaires, the median hospital bed count was 450 (range, 150-1,387), and the median number of blood culture bottles processed was 17,351 (range, 2,900-80,330). All laboratories (100%) had an automated blood culture incubation system. Three-quarters of the laboratories (75%, n = 61) had at least one automated system for both bacterial identification and AST, about a quarter (22%, n = 18) had no automated systems for either step, and two laboratories (3%) outsourced both steps. The systems varied and were associated with the hospital level. Many laboratories utilized both automated systems and conventional methods for bacterial identification (n = 54) and AST (n = 61). For daily data management, 71 laboratories (88%) used commercial microbiology LIMS, three (4%) WHONET, three (4%) an in-house database software and four (5%) did not use any software. Many laboratories manually entered data of incubation (73%, n = 59), bacterial identification (27%, n = 22) and AST results (25%, n = 20) from their automated systems into their commercial microbiology LIMS. The most common barrier to data analysis was 'lack of time', followed by 'lack of staff with statistical skills' and 'difficulty in using analytical software'.
conclusionIn Thailand, various automated systems for blood culture and LIMS are utilized. However, barriers to data management and analysis are common. These challenges are likely present in other upper-middle-income countries. We propose that guidance and technical support for automated systems, LIMS and data analysis are needed.
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.