ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Evaluating the Practical Impact of Fast Microbiology on the Treatment of Bloodstream Infections: Real-World Evidence from a High-Complexity Infectious Disease Center.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesBloodstream infections (BSIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly when delays in pathogen identification hinder timely and targeted antimicrobial therapy. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) accelerate microbiological identification, yet their clinical impact remains heterogeneous across different healthcare settings. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world effect of implementing FAST microbiology, a diagnostic workflow that integrates RDTs into conventional blood culture processing, on diagnostic timeliness, antimicrobial decision-making, and patient management in a hospital specializing in complex infectious diseases.
methodsWe conducted a quasi-experimental study comparing non-FAST and FAST workflows over a 24-month period, including 166 adult patients with sepsis admitted to ICU and non-ICU units, accounting for 231 BSIs. Microbiological outcomes, treatment dynamics, time to targeted therapy, and key clinical endpoints were compared between non-FAST and FAST groups.
resultsFAST microbiology significantly reduced the time to initiation of targeted therapy across clinical settings. No statistically significant differences were observed in hospital length of stay, overall mortality, or 28-day mortality between the two groups. Baseline clinical severity, age, and comorbidity burden remained the main determinants of clinical outcomes.
conclusionsThese real-world findings support the integration of rapid diagnostics into existing antimicrobial stewardship frameworks by improving diagnostic timeliness and supporting earlier microbiologically guided therapeutic decisions. However, the results also highlight that accelerating diagnostics alone may not be sufficient to improve survival in critically ill patients with complex infectious diseases, where outcomes are predominantly driven by patient- and disease-related factors.
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.