ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
A retrospective analysis of emergency department cultures in a tertiary care center.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo describe the distribution and outcomes of cultures obtained in the emergency department (ED), examine contamination and microbiological yield across specimen types, and compare results between adult and pediatric settings.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study including all cultures obtained over a 12-month period in the adult and pediatric EDs of a tertiary hospital. Demographic characteristics, culture type, microbiological results, and patient disposition were extracted from electronic records. Culture results were categorized as no growth, contamination/commensal-flora, bacterial growth with or without extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) production, yeast growth, or sample rejection.
resultsA total of 2,674 cultures were analyzed. Nearly half of the cultures showed no growth (48.8%), and 24.3% were classified as contamination/commensal-flora based on laboratory report wording, representing low-interpretability flora reports rather than a formal blood culture contamination rate. Bacterial growth without ESBL production occurred in 16.6%, while ESBL-producing organisms were detected in 2.3%; yeast growth occurred in 1.0%, and 7.0% of samples were rejected. Urine cultures constituted the largest proportion and demonstrated higher rates of both growth and contamination/commensal-flora compared with blood and sterile body fluid cultures. Contamination/commensal-flora was more frequent in pediatric ED cultures, whereas hospitalized-particularly intensive care-patients had higher microbiological positivity and a greater prevalence of ESBL-producing organisms.
conclusionsA substantial share of ED cultures yielded no growth or laboratory-wording-based contamination/commensal-flora reports, suggesting limited diagnostic interpretability in many cases. Variation by specimen type and patient disposition highlights the importance of selective culture ordering, improved collection practices, and integration of antimicrobial stewardship principles into ED workflows. Prospective multicenter studies incorporating clinical outcomes are needed to clarify the impact of ED culture practices on patient care.
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.