ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Evaluation of direct microbial identification by MALDI-TOF MS and antimicrobial susceptibility testing for early diagnosis of blood stream infections.
Article in BMC 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.
- Evolving Approaches to Bacterial Identification: A Review of Classical and Modern Techniques.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBloodstream infections (BSI) related mortality rates are increasing worldwide making it a medical emergency. This study has evaluated a new method for direct detection of pathogens and to perform direct antimicrobial susceptibility testing from the positive flagged blood culture. Early diagnosis and prompt treatment with appropriate antibiotics is the utmost need.
methodA 30-minute protocol for pellet formation was developed using the positive blood culture bottle broth by triton X, SDS and saponin method for direct identification of pathogens. Clinical blood culture samples from patients, positive for Gram-negative bacteria, were included in the study (160 for direct identification and 250 for direct antimicrobial susceptibility testing). We compared results with routine method.
resultsThe agreement of Triton X, SDS and saponin direct identification method compared to the conventional method was 96.2%, 91.8% and 90% respectively. A total of 960 pathogen and antimicrobial agent combinations were tested, 99.8% antimicrobial sensitivity testing results by direct method showed categorical agreement with the standard routine disc diffusion method.
conclusionOverall, the newer method of direct microbial identification and antibiotic sensitivity testing is both time and cost effective.
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.