Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42740793›Full record

ReviewPractical laboratory medicine2026

Direct rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) from positive blood cultures: Recent advances, challenges, and future directions.

Haiyi Li, Qiongfang Zhu, Yalu Ren, Meili Shen, Jie Xu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Practical laboratory medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Haiyi LiCenter of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Qiongfang ZhuCenter of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Yalu RenCenter of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Meili ShenMedical Department, Nanjing Dinfectome Technology Inc., Nanjing, China.
Jie XuCenter of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) carry high morbidity and mortality, and delayed targeted therapy worsens survival. Conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) from positive blood cultures typically requires 24-48 h (and >72 h for some resistant organisms), delaying appropriate treatment and leaving 14-78% of empirical regimens unnecessary or ineffective. Direct rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) addresses this bottleneck by delivering AST in 4-16 h with categorical agreement (CA) ≥90% for major pathogens, using volatile organic compound (VOC) detection, modified disk diffusion, microfluidics, and molecular approaches. RAST generally makes susceptibility results available approximately 8-44 h earlier, with savings exceeding 56 h when conventional testing requires more than 72 h. This review compares the principles, turnaround times (TAT), and performance of leading RAST platforms. It further identifies persistent bottlenecks restricting cross-platform comparability and clinical uptake, most notably the absence of standardized protocols, the inability of molecular assays to determine minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), and unresolved pre-analytical confounders. Although RAST reliably shortens time-to-result and supports antimicrobial stewardship, its routine integration demands platform-specific validation, transparent regulatory and cost-effectiveness assessment.

Indexed as

Bloodstream infectionsLimitationsPerformancePositive blood culturesRapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Identifiers

PMID42740793
PMCPMC13572009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.