ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
A simple, low-cost, and highly efficient protocol for rapid isolation of pathogenic bacteria from human blood.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 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.
- Isolating viable bacteria from positive blood cultures: impedance cytometry analysis.Biomedical microdevices · 2026Article
- Recent Advances in Bacterial Separation and Enrichment from Blood for the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bacteremia is a serious clinical condition in which pathogenic bacteria enter the bloodstream, putting patients at risk of septic shock and necessitating aggressive antibiotic treatment. Choosing the most effective antibiotic is crucial not only for resolving the infection but also for minimizing side effects, such as dysbiosis in the healthy microbiome and mitigating the evolution of antibiotic resistance. This requires rapid identification of the pathogen and antibiotic susceptibility testing, yet these processes are inherently slow in standard clinical microbiology labs due to reliance on growth-based assays. Although alternative methods exist, they are rarely adopted in clinical settings because they involve complex protocols and high costs for retraining the personnel and new equipment. Here, we present an optimized and straightforward protocol for the rapid and efficient isolation of bacterial pathogens directly from blood samples, without disrupting standard laboratory workflows. This cost-effective approach utilizes commonly available laboratory equipment and enables direct bacterial cell isolation. By eliminating the need for traditional blood culture steps, it significantly reduces diagnostic delays while remaining fully compatible with downstream bacterial identification analyses. Our protocol achieves over 70% bacteria isolation efficiency within 30 min, remained effective at low bacterial concentrations (1-10 bacteria/0.3 mL blood), and preserved bacterial viability with no notable change in growth lag times. We validated the protocol on several clinically relevant bacterial species, including
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.