ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2025
Reliability of differential time to positivity technique for diagnosing catheter-related bloodstream infections: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 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.
- Complications in Central Venous Access Devices in Paediatric Cancer Care: A Global Cross-Sectional Survey.European journal of haematology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The differential time to positivity (DTTP) technique is the recommended conservative procedure to diagnose catheter-related bloodstream infection (C-RBSI). However, its reliability and accuracy remain under debate. Therefore, we aimed to compare the DTTP technique feasibility to detect C-RBSI compared to the catheter culture (CC) method. We conducted a 9-month retrospective study including bacteremic episodes in which both DTTP blood cultures (BC) and CC were obtained. We analyzed the diagnostic validity of the DTTP technique for detecting C-RBSI compared to the gold standard (C-RBSI with CC), along with patient clinical data. We included 37 episodes of C-RBSI where both DTTP BC and CC were obtained. C-RBSI was confirmed by both techniques in only 13 episodes (35.1%), whereas in 11 (29.7%) and 13 (35.1%), only DTTP BC or DTTP BC with CC (with a difference between catheter lumen and peripheral BC growth of <2 hours) was positive, respectively. Therefore, the validity values of the DTTP technique for predicting C-RBSI were as follows: sensitivity, 50.0%; specificity, 71.8%; positive predictive value, 54.2%; and negative predictive value, 68.3%. The distribution of microorganisms was similar among the three groups. All patients in whom colonization was not demonstrated by CC (
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.