ArticlePloS one2025
Analysis of blood culture practices in multicenter university-affiliated hospitals in Korea: A retrospective study focused on procedural optimization.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundBlood culture is an essential diagnostic tool for detecting bloodstream infections, particularly in patients with suspected sepsis. Routine implementation in healthcare settings necessitates adherence to standardized protocols to ensure diagnostic accuracy. We assessed blood culture practices in university-affiliated hospitals across Korea by analyzing key performance metrics and related indicators.
methodsIn 2024, a standardized questionnaire was distributed to 14 university-affiliated hospitals. The survey collected data on blood culture practices during 2023, including the total number of cultures performed, the number of sets obtained per episode, the frequency of repeated cultures, the volume of blood collected per bottle, discrepancies in culture results, the types of organisms isolated, and post-test reporting practices.
resultsIn 2023, the median number of blood cultures requested per 1,000 hospitalized patients was 166.6 (43,699 cultures among 241,053 admissions). Two-set collections were most common (median 68.9%), followed by single-set collections (13.0%). Repeat cultures were more frequently performed following negative results (29.2%) than positive ones (5.5%). The median volume collected was 4.0 and 4.3 mL for aerobic and anaerobic bottles, respectively. Only 16.7% of Gram stain results were reported within 2 h.
conclusionsBlood culture practices, particularly regarding test ordering and the use of two or more sets per episode, appear generally appropriate. However, specific aspects-including the indications for repeat cultures, adequacy of collected blood volume, and timeliness of Gram stain reporting-require further evaluation and targeted quality improvement efforts.
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.