ArticlePloS one2026
A national survey on laboratory practices for specimen processing, streptococcus pneumoniae identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing in CARSS Hospitals in China.
Article in PloS one, 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
Standardized processing of respiratory specimens and accurate identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of Streptococcus pneumoniae are crucial for clinical management. This study investigated laboratory practices for specimen processing, S. pneumoniae identification, and AST of S. pneumoniaeamong CARSS hospitals. A nationwide online survey was conducted in 2023. After data cleaning, 3,297 valid questionnaires were analyzed. The survey assessed specimen distribution, sputum/BALF processing, identification and quality control (QC). Sputum was the most common specimen(39.92%), followed by "others" (20.83%), blood (20.47%), urine (14.16%), and BALF (4.58%). Most laboratories performed routine Gram staining on sputum (71.55%) and BALF (66.88%). For sputum smears, 75.80% ~ 86.29% reported semi-quantitative cell/pathogen counts. The dominant acceptability criterion for sputum was > 25 WBCs/LPF and <10 SECs/LPF (98.88%). For unacceptable sputum specimens yielding S. pneumoniae 45.12% laboratories laboratories performed identification/AST only if the bacterial quantity was ≥ 2 + . Common identification methods were Optochin/bile solubility test (53.32%), Vitek GP card (42.74%) and MALDI-TOF MS (30.15%). AST methods included Vitek GP68 (38.76%), disk diffusion (32.91%), gradient diffusion (22.78%) and DL-96STREP cards (21.20%). Notably, 44.10% perform no routine AST QC and 44.62% lacked QC strain ATCC 49619. Only 49.65% used ATCC 49619 for QC.Significant variations exist in laboratory practices for respiratory specimen processing and S. pneumoniae workup across CARSS hospitals. While conventional methods remain prevalent, MALDI-TOF MS adoption is growing.The high proportion of laboratories lacking routine AST QC underscores the need for standardized protocols and enhanced quality assurance nationwide.
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.