Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41629772›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2026

Evaluation of three rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods directly from positive blood cultures integrated with rapid pathogen identification.

Bingshao Liang, Xueying Li, Qiyin Zheng, Hao Cai, Sufei Zhu, Meng Zhang, Zhenting Huang, Qiulian Deng, Huamin Zhong, Fei Gao and 3 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Bingshao Liang *Clinical Laboratory, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xueying Li *Clinical Laboratory, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Qiyin ZhengClinical Laboratory, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Hao CaiClinical Laboratory, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Sufei ZhuClinical Laboratory, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Meng ZhangClinical Laboratory, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Zhenting HuangClinical Laboratory, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Qiulian DengClinical Laboratory, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Huamin ZhongClinical Laboratory, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Fei GaoClinical Laboratory, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Qian XuClinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yan LongClinical Laboratory, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. longyangmc@163.com.
Jielin WangClinical Laboratory, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. jielinwang2008@163.com.

Funding

Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Laboratory Medicine 2023B110008Guangzhou Municipal Science and Technology Bureau 202201020654National Natural Science Foundation of China 82002202Traditional Chinese Medicine Bureau of Guangdong Province 20251132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBloodstream infections (BSIs) is a major public health concern associated with high mortality. The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines recommend administering antibiotics within three hours after sepsis identified, thus, we aimed to optimize the procedure and reduce the turnaround time for pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

methodsWe conducted a prospective study on positive blood culture flagged within 8 h by the BacT/Alert 3D system between November 2023 and July 2024. We enrolled single bacterial bloodstream infection by both the Gram staining and Liu’s staining and conducted a rapid pathogen identification by using Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) after a 3-hour incubation on agar plate. Appropriate antibiotics were chosen according to species identification for three RAST protocols, namely a novel short term agar plate or broth culture method and an integrated RAST protocol integrating CLSI and EUCAST criteria. First, the concordance rate between rapid and standard MALDI-TOF MS identification was evaluated. This was followed by an analysis of the categorical agreement (CA), along with minor discrepancy (mD), major discrepancy (MD), and very major discrepancy (VMD) rates, between rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) and the conventional methods (e.g., Vitek 2 automated system).

resultsA total of 112 monomicrobial positive blood culture samples were analyzed. The rapid pathogen identification method, reducing turnaround time by approximately 18 h, exhibited a concordance rate of 94.6% (95% CI, 88.8–97.5%). Gram-negative bacteria and Gram-positive cocci were accurately identified to the species level in 95.7% (95% CI, 85.8–98.8%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 85.2–97.6%) of cases, respectively. A total number of 595 inhibition zone diameters were generated in each method, including 374 Gram-positive cocci and 221 Gram-negative bacilli. Two novel RAST both achieved an overall CA of 95.5% (95% CI, 93.5–96.9%), with MD and mD below 3%. However, the hybrid RAST integrating CLSI and EUCAST standard demonstrated a MD of 3.7% (95% CI, 2.5–5.5%). When analyzed based on the antibiotic perspective, the below antibiotics all demonstrated 100% CA, including penicillin, cefoxitin, linezolid, and tetracycline against Gram-positive bacteria and ciprofloxacin, ampicillin and aztreonam against Gram-negative bacteria.

conclusionWe have successfully developed and optimized a rapid identification and RAST workflow enabling swift and reliable detection of pathogens causing bloodstream infections.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBacteremiaBacteriaBlood CultureBacterial Typing TechniquesGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Positive BacteriaHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsProspective StudiesSepsisSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationTime FactorsAnti-Bacterial AgentsGram stainingLiu's stainingMALDI-TOF MSRapid antimicrobial susceptibility testingRapid pathogen identification

Identifiers

PMID41629772
PMCPMC12980964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.