ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2026
Evaluation of alternative blood culture systems in detecting pathogenic bacteria: a multi-site, observational prospective study.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2026. 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.
- Concerns about "Evaluation of alternative blood culture systems in detecting pathogenic bacteria: a multi-site, observational prospective study" by Hu et al., 2026.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sepsis, is a severe, life-threatening response to infection with rising incidence and significant mortality. Although blood culture (BC) systems are critical for sepsis diagnosis and the detection of pathogens bacteria, their high cost limits their use in low-income regions. This study evaluates the performance and affordability of bottles with gold-standard systems. Methods: From September 2023 to June 2024, we conducted a nine-month evaluation of alternative BC instruments (Meihua Medical [MH] and DL-Biotech [DL]) and BC bottles (BCBs) against bioMérieux and Becton Dickinson (BD) across five tertiary hospitals in Zhejiang province, China. Before processing clinical samples, we examined the performance of BCBs and instruments including time to positivity (TTP) and sensitivity after spiking bottles with Findings: DL and MH instruments performed well in TTP across commonly isolated bacteria. In the non-inferiority observational study, we compared instruments between MH versus BD, DL versus BD, MH versus bioMérieux, and DL versus bioMérieux, giving concordance rates of 97.2%, 97.7%, 98.0%, and 96.5%, respectively. However, when comparing sensitivity between MH and BD, and MH and bioMérieux, the number of detected bacterial isolates was 163 versus 122, and 116 versus 108, respectively. When comparing BCBs, MH versus BD bottles, and MH versus bioMérieux bottles, gave 209 and 193, and 205 and 200 positive growths, respectively. However, MH was less effective than BD in detecting anaerobic bacteria. DL had a lower overall detection rate compared to bioMérieux (130 versus 199) but exhibited similar TTP for Interpretation: Our evaluation of DL and MH BC systems suggests that both are comparable to BD, and bioMérieux. Their performance of alternative BC instruments and bottles, suggest that BC alternatives should be considered in providing clinical support for low- and middle-income countries, and augment appropriate antimicrobial stewardship. Funding: This study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2022YFD1800400) and the Theme Based Research Scheme (T11-104/22-R) from the Research Grant Council of the Government of Hong Kong SAR.
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.