ArticleEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2026
Low-Value Blood Culture Use in Adult Emergency Department Patients: A Scoping Review.
Article in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood cultures (BCs) are used in emergency departments (EDs) to investigate and manage suspected sepsis; however, their inappropriate use contributes to low-value care, providing limited clinical benefit while causing avoidable harm. Despite recommendations for more selective testing, low-value blood culture (LVBC) use persists, and there remains uncertainty on the definition, drivers, and impact of LVBCs.
objectivesTo map the existing literature on LVBCs in adult ED patients, including definitions of LVBCs, associated clinical contexts, contributing factors, consequences and related gaps in knowledge.
methodsSix databases were searched from inception to June 30, 2025. Studies involving adult populations and addressing LVBC use in EDs were included. Data were charted independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using JBI critical appraisal tools.
resultsOf 1453 records screened, 18 studies were included in this scoping review. None defined LVBCs, although five themes characterising LVBCs emerged: limited impact on patient management, non-adherence to guidelines, failure to meet predictive tool thresholds, protocol-driven ordering, and BCs deemed unnecessary by clinicians. Reported prevalence of LVBCs ranged from 19% to 69%. The most referenced LVBC driver was pressure to comply with quality measures. Reported consequences of LVBCs included unnecessary treatment, investigation and prolonged stay due to false positive results. Patient-centred outcomes were rarely reported, and formal economic evaluations were lacking.
conclusionLVBCs are prevalent among adult ED patients yet inconsistently defined. Addressing the issue will require standardised criteria, interventions targeting root causes, and research focused on patient-centred and economic consequences to optimise BC ordering practices.
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.