ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Comparative study of antibiotic adsorption capacity of three brands of blood culture bottles.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Low-cost in-house re-formulated brain heart infusion medium for effective planktonic growth and early detection of bloodstream bacterial pathogens.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the adsorption capacity of BacT/ALERT FA Plus aerobic, FN Plus anaerobic bottles, BD BACTEC Aerobic/F Plus, resin-free Lytic/10 Anaerobic/F bottles and VersaTREK Aerobic, Anaerobic bottles for antibiotics. Methods: The clinically commonly used vancomycin, cefoperazone/sulbactam, imipenem and penicillin were investigated in the study. These antibiotics were mixed with standard strains and sterile horse blood at certain concentrations and inoculated into aerobic and anaerobic bottles of the three blood culture systems, then placed in the automated blood culture instrument. The positive detection rate and time to detection (TTD) of these three blood culture systems were recorded within five days in order to compare their detection and adsorption of antibiotics. Finally, one of the most detectable blood culture bottles were used on patients in the comprehensive intensive care unit (ICU) for one month and analyzed retrospectively in comparison with previous data. Results: The detection rates of the aerobic bottles were 25/35 (71.4%) for BacT/Alert FA Plus and BACTEC Aerobic/F Plus bottles, 12/35 (34.3%) for VersaTREK Aerobic bottles. The detection rates of the anaerobic bottles were 20/35 (57.1%) for BacT/Alert FN Plus bottles, 1/35 (2.9%) for VersaTREK Anaerobic bottles, and no positive bottles were detected in BD BACTEC Lytic/10 Anaerobic bottles. The TTD for the BacT/Alert FA Plus bottle (24.4 hours) was 5.1 hours shorter than the BD BACTEC Aerobic/F Plus bottle (29.5 hours) and 34.1 hours shorter than the VersaTREK Aerobic bottle (58.5 hours). In the ICU, the detection rates were 12.5% and 9.1% for BacT/ALERT medium and VersaTREK medium, respectively. For gram-negative bacteria, the TTD for BacT/ALERT medium and VersaTREK medium were 19.02 hours and 18.29 hours, respectively. For gram-positive bacteria, the TTD for BacT/ALERT medium and VersaTREK medium were 22.25 and 35.87 hours, respectively. Conclusion: The BacT/ALERT system has relative advantages in the detection rate, TTD, and antibiotic adsorption capacity, and can be used selectively in patients who have received antibiotic therapy. The use of BacT/ALERT medium resulted in a relative increase in detection rates, as well as in the type and number of strains detected compared to the VersaTREK medium previously used in the comprehensive ICU.
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.