ReviewPractical laboratory medicine2026
Direct rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) from positive blood cultures: Recent advances, challenges, and future directions.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.