ArticleMicroorganisms2025
Comparative Assessment of Rapid Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods for Bloodstream Infections in a Non-24/7 Clinical Microbiology Laboratory.
Article in Microorganisms, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and Economic Value of Rapid Microbiological Diagnostics in Bloodstream Infections: A State-of-the-Art Evidence Review with Emphasis on PCR and MALDI-TOF.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Spectral Precision: Recent Advances in Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry for Pathogen Detection and Resistance Profiling.Microorganisms · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing are essential for timely bloodstream infection (BSI) management. This study aimed to investigate the performance and turnaround time of multiple rapid diagnostic methods in a microbiology laboratory without 24/7 operation. This study included 236 positive blood culture bottles. Rapid identification methods were assessed with the SepsiTyper kit and the FilmArray blood culture identification 2 (BCID2) panel. Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) methods involved direct AST using the BD Phoenix M50 system and QuantaMatrix direct and rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (dRAST) and resistance gene detection with the FilmArray BCID2 panel. Conventional methods were used to compare results. The turnaround time was analyzed from blood culture positivity to preparation initiation and from preparation initiation to result reporting. Both rapid identification methods significantly reduced the turnaround time (~1 day and 19 h) compared to conventional identification. SepsiTyper demonstrated higher species-level accuracy in monomicrobial samples, whereas BCID2 outperformed in polymicrobial cases. Among the rapid AST methods, BCID2 and dRAST enabled result reporting within 24 h of positivity. Preparation delays were >45% of the overall turnaround time. Rapid diagnostics substantially shortened the BSI diagnostic time, even in limited-operation settings. Their clinical utility may be improved through 24/7 laboratory workflows.
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.