Rapid Nanopore Sequencing of Positive Blood Cultures Using Automated Benzyl-Alcohol Extraction Improves Time-Critical Sepsis Management.

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.

1. Analytical and Clinical Evaluation of a Fully Automated Direct-from-Whole-Blood Multiplex PCR Assay Using Large-Volume Reverse Elution for Rapid Bloodstream Infection Diagnosis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
   Article
2. Oxford Nanopore Sequencing, a Promising Technology for Precision Diagnostics in Intensive Care Units: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026
   Review
3. Current status and prospects of nanopore sequencing technology in the detection of pathogenic microorganisms.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026
   Review

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as