ArticleThe Journal of infection2025
Less haste, more speed: Does delayed blood culture transport time lead to adverse incubation times or yield?
Article in The Journal of infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Does the Time from Intraoperative Culture Harvest to Incubation Impact Culture Positivity in Orthopaedic Surgeries? A Case-Control Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic stewardship in sepsis: minding the gap from the microbiology lab to ward.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025Review
- Streptococcal endocarditis: a meta-analysis of species dependant risk.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
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
backgroundBlood culture remains a vital diagnostic tool in the acutely unwell patient. The UK Standards for Microbiology Investigations (SMI) stipulate pre-analytical requirements that are aimed at increasing yield and reducing turnaround time. The requirement to load blood cultures on machines within 4 h has been shown to reduce turnaround time but limited evidence exists as to whether it improves yield.
methodsWe extracted blood culture results, including organism growth, time to detection, location and time of sample collection from 4 hospitals in Southwest England. We then used mixed effects, Bayesian linear and logistic regression models to examine the effect of predictor variables like time to laboratory (TTL) and sent time on the response variable of growth or time to detection. We fitted generalised additive models to explore non-linearity.
results449,191 culture sets were analysed, 398,077 of which had enough data to include in the final analysis. 37,255 sets flagged positive (9.36%) of which 21,330 were considered pathogens. Our primary analysis identified a small decrease in yield with each hours delay in loading (0.997 (95%CrI 0.994-1.001)). This effect was largest in Streptococcus pneumoniae, agalactiae and pyogenes. In our analysis on time on the machine, culture sets spend 10.03 (95%CrI 12.66-7.31) minutes less on incubators for each hour delay. Neither anaerobes nor yeasts showed any loss of recovery from increasing TTL. There was no convincing non-linearity in either of these effects.
conclusionThere is a marginal loss of growth for every hour a blood culture is left unincubated, with the loss of recovery of Streptococcus pyogenes and other streptococci being most common. There was no evidence of a reduction in Gram-negatives, anaerobes, or yeasts. There was a small decrease in time to detection for delayed sets. This analysis suggests there may be marginal benefit in reducing time to load.
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.