Observational studyEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2025
Lab efficiency and improvements in the management of bloodstream infections: a before and after study.
Observational study in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 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.
- A diagnostic stewardship bundle approach to facilitate same-day optimal antimicrobial therapy in gram-negative sepsis: a quasi-experimental study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Association of Once-Daily MALDI-TOF MS Identification with Antibiotic Appropriateness and First-Modification Patterns in Emergency Department Bacteremia: A Retrospective Before-After Cohort Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- End-to-End Timeliness of Blood Culture Diagnostics: A One-Month Observational Study of 5121 Bottles.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEarly availability of identification of bacterial pathogens and knowledge of their antimicrobial susceptibility is crucial when managing patients with bloodstream infections (BSI). We aimed to assess the impact of the laboratory conversion (full automation and conversion to 24/7 workflow) on laboratory efficiency, timeliness of diagnostic results, and patient outcomes.
methodsAn observational retrospective study was conducted to compare lab organisation, laboratory times including turnaround time (TAT) for positive blood cultures (PBCs), antimicrobial therapy (antibiotic prescription, time to first antibiotic modification), patient outcomes (30-day mortality, hospital and ICU discharge), and antibiotic consumption for pre- and post-conversion periods (January to December 2019 versus June 2021 to May 2022) in adults with BSI admitted to the ICU at the Centre Hospitalier de Valenciennes. Multivariable models were used to compare periods, adjusting for relevant patient characteristics.
resultsA total of 116 and 128 PBCs from 104 to 112 patients in pre- and post-conversion were analysed. TAT decreased significantly for clinically significant episodes (median 30.4 (n = 83) versus 27.1 h (n = 84), p = 0.004). The percent of PBCs with antimicrobial susceptibility testing results available within 24 h increased significantly for night shift PBCs (0.9% versus 18.7%; p < 0.0001). A significant reduction in time to first antibiotic modification occurred (median difference of 19.1 h, p = 0.04). Additionally, we observed for the post-conversion a 51% increase in probability of ICU discharge (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.51, 95%CI 1.09‒2.08, p = 0.014) and a trend towards a reduction in 30-day mortality (HR = 0.65, 95%CI 0.40‒1.06, p = 0.085).
conclusionLaboratory reorganisation improved laboratory efficiency, leading to improvements in the management of patients with BSIs. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER : Not applicable.
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.