ArticleInfection and drug resistance2025
Evaluation of EUCAST Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Gram-Negative Bacteria Directly from Positive Blood Cultures.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (RAST): A Quick Guide to Bacterial Sepsis Management.Cureus · 2026Article
- Optimizing bloodstream infection diagnosis: Implementation of the EUCAST Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (RAST) with automated digital imaging.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Clinical evaluation of EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing in Gram-negative bacilli bloodstream infections: a real-world retrospective study.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of EUCAST Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Gram-Negative ESKAPEEc Pathogens in Blood Cultures, with a Focus on Carbapenemase-ProducingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) for Gram-negative bacteria directly from positive blood cultures, comparing it with short-term incubation (5-7 hours) and conventional broth microdilution methods. Methods: A total of 139 Gram-negative isolates were tested. RAST results were assessed at 4 h, 6 h against minimal inhibitory concentration results using the short-term incubation (5-7 h) method, while at 16-20 h, the RAST results were compared to conventional method. For those with interpretable results, CLSI M52 was used to define cutoffs for equivalence in antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Results: Among all isolates, 80.6% (112/139) were successfully interpreted based on EUCAST RAST breakpoints, including Conclusion: RAST is a reliable and cost-effective method for testing Gram-negative bacteria directly from blood cultures, significantly reducing turnaround time. Utilizing RAST at various reading times (6 hours and 16-20 hours) optimizes clinical workflows, enhances antimicrobial stewardship, and improves patient 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.