ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative analysis of the detection capabilities of BacT/ALERT and BACTEC blood culture systems for simulated and clinical bacteremia specimens.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
Abstract
We aimed to compare the performance of BacT/ALERT and BACTEC blood culture systems in detecting bacteremia in simulated and clinical samples. Antibiotic neutralization tests using specific microorganism–antibiotic combinations were conducted to simulate bacteremia. Blood cultures from 228 hospitalized patients in the emergency and intensive care units were collected bilaterally and in duplicate. In the simulated scenarios, Candida albicans was detected at a 100% rate solely in the BacT/ALERT FA Plus aerobic bottles. For Bacteroides fragilis treated with meropenem, BacT/ALERT FN Plus anaerobic bottles achieved full detection, whereas BACTEC Lytic/10 anaerobic/F bottles failed. Among the 228 patients, the bacteremia positivity rate was 17.97% for BacT/ALERT bottles compared to 11.52% for BACTEC bottles. Moreover, the positive detection rates for the BacT/ALERT FN Plus anaerobic and BACTEC Lytic/10 anaerobic/F bottles were 15.20% and 5.99%, respectively. Notably, 100 clinical strains were identified, with BacT/ALERT identifying 15 types (65 strains) and BACTEC identifying 10 types (35 strains). Only BacT/ALERT FN Plus anaerobic bottles effectively adsorbed meropenem. BACTEC Lytic/10/F anaerobic bottles may miss bacteremia cases associated with carbapenem use. Compared to BACTEC, BacT/ALERT exhibited higher positivity rates and superior detection capabilities.
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.