ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Automated Blood Culture Systems: Comparison of BACT/ALERT VIRTUO and BD BACTEC FX from a Provider Perspective.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The BACT/ALERT® VIRTUO® system (VIRTUO system) and BD BACTEC™ FX (FX system) can rapidly detect microbial growth in patients with bloodstream infections (BSIs). The cost-effectiveness model presented in this study compared the estimated economic and clinical consequences of adopting these systems. Methods: A decision tree framework with a one-year time horizon, for a hypothetical population of 10,044 patients was developed to estimate differences in clinical and economic outcomes between the VIRTUO and FX systems. Outcomes included hospital-based mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs, and total costs (USD, $) for 2023. One-way sensitivity (OWSA) and scenario analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. Results: From a US provider's perspective, the base case showed a reduction in mortality rate (VIRTUO system: 18.03%; FX system: 19.67%) and cumulative hospital LOS (VIRTUO system: 12,804 days; FX system: 12,871 days) for patients with blood cultures tested with the VIRTUO system compared to the FX system. Total cost reduction from a provider perspective, led to estimated cost savings of $216,062 per year with the adoption of the VIRTUO system. In the scenario analysis, when the bottle cost of the VIRTUO system increased or decreased by 50%, the testing costs between the VIRTUO and FX systems differed by 35% from the base case. OWSA showed the positivity rate, proportion of patients receiving empirical treatment and septic shock hospital costs were the most influential variables for the model. Conclusion: Adopting the VIRTUO systems by hospitals has the potential to improve patient-related outcomes and economic savings.
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.