SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
Impact of molecular rapid diagnostic testing on clinical outcomes in bloodstream infections: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid microbiological diagnostics for sepsis in critical care: integrating technological advances with antimicrobial stewardship.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Advances in Machine Learning-Assisted Optical Sensing Arrays for Disease Diagnosis.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molecular rapid diagnostic testing is considered superior to conventional microbiological methods for bloodstream infections. Molecular rapid diagnostic testing reduces time to organism identification, facilitates timely initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy, and improves clinical outcomes, including reduced mortality. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of molecular rapid diagnostic testing on the results outcomes of bloodstream infections. We studied meta-analysis data and used a dichotomous or continuous model with fixed or random effects to get odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). 51 studies with a total of 14,675 subjects were selected for the study. Molecular rapid diagnostic testing was associated with significantly lower mortality (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60–0.74, p < 0.001), mortality with Gram-positive organisms (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59–0.90, p = 0.004), mortality with Gram-negative organisms (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60–0.87, p < 0.001), mortality with multiple organisms (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47–0.82, p < 0.001), length of hospital stay (MD, -3.79; 95% CI, -5.61- -1.97, p < 0.001), intensive care unit length of stay (MD, -2.05; 95% CI, -3.21- -0.88, p < 0.001), and cost (MD, -5.48; 95% CI, -9.41- -1.55, p < 0.001) compared to conventional methods in bloodstream infections. Molecular fast diagnostic testing for bloodstream infections significantly reduced mortality risk. Molecular fast diagnostic testing also reduced the time to successful therapy and the duration of hospitalization. Molecular fast diagnostic tests ought to be integrated into the standard of treatment for patients with bloodstream infections. However, more studies are required to validate this finding.
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.