ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025
Factors associated with blood culture sampling for adult acute care hospital patients with suspected severe infection: a scoping review using a socioecological framework.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Factors influencing antibiotic use in confirmed viral respiratory tract infections.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026Observational
- Clinician perspectives on blood culture practice and diagnostic stewardship in regional emergency departments.Journal of medical microbiology · 2026Article
- Low-Value Blood Culture Use in Adult Emergency Department Patients: A Scoping Review.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a machine learning model for predicting positive blood cultures using vital signs in ICU patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A scoping review of interventions to improve blood culture sampling practices in hospital acute care settings.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reliable blood culture sampling for patients with suspected severe infection is critical, but evidence suggests that blood culture samples are not always reliably collected for acute hospital patients with severe infection. There is a pressing need to understand the barriers and facilitators of optimal sampling practices for patient safety and antimicrobial stewardship. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify evidence of factors associated with reliable blood culture sampling, for adult patients with suspected severe infection in acute care in high-income countries. We searched bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL), reference lists and citations between 2013 and February 2024. Findings were mapped to a socioecological framework. Results: We retrieved 1823 records from the database searches; 7 studies were eligible for inclusion, with 8 additional studies identified from reference lists and citation searches. All 15 included papers identified factors at the individual level of influence, including patient factors (demographics, clinical signs and symptoms) and staff factors (knowledge of guidelines, attitudes and beliefs, emotion, clinical experience and training, and perception of economic cost). Evidence gaps existed in relation to factors at interpersonal, situational, organizational, community and policy levels. Conclusions: Our review provides insights into blood culture sampling practices in hospitals, and highlights possible evidence gaps as potential areas to guide future research and inform the development of interventions to improve blood culture sampling in hospitals. Existing research has been dominated by a focus on individual levels of influence, with a paucity of evidence on influences at the interpersonal, situational, organization, community and policy levels.
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.