ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2025
Determining the Usefulness of Selected Laboratory Markers of Inflammation in Qualifying Patients for T2 Biosystems Determination.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImproving treatment outcomes sepsis requires early recognition, the implementation of appropriate treatment, and targeted antimicrobial therapy. Nowadays, microbiological diagnostic methods are available to accelerate microbiological diagnosis, thereby reducing the time needed to implement targeted antibiotic therapy. One method for rapid diagnosis is the amplified magnetic resonance imaging-T2 Biosystems, USA (T2Dx). This method enables the identification of pathogens directly from a blood sample (approximately 4 mL) within about 3.5 h. The use of the "T2 Resistance" panel additionally allows for the detection of the most common bacterial resistance mechanisms in about 4-5 h. The disadvantage of the T2Dx method is the limited number of microorganisms it can detect. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of using selected inflammatory parameters to accurately qualify patients (positive result) for T2Dx testing.
methodsWe have made a retrospective evaluation of selected inflammatory parameters in order to determine which parameters are the best indicators for good qualification of patients. RESULTS AND
conclusionA single analysis of parameters such as C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cells (WBC), #neutr, #lymph, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is not a good indicator that could be used as an additional tool facilitating patient qualification for T2Dx testing. The most sensitive parameter distinguishing between patients with a positive T2Dx result and those with a negative result is the measurement of IL-6 and PCT. Proper patient qualification for T2Dx testing can significantly contribute to reducing the time to initiate targeted antibiotic therapy and may impact reducing mortality and improving long-term treatment outcomes.
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.