ArticlePloS one2026
Rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of pathogenic microorganisms from positive blood cultures.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBloodstream infections (BSIs) are severe illnesses associated with high mortality. Delays in obtaining microbial culture results often hinder timely targeted antimicrobial therapy. Our study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of rapid pathogen identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) in BSIs.
methodsPositive blood culture (BC) broth was transferred into separation gel vacuum blood collection tubes for preprocessing, followed by pathogen identification via matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). Identification concordance rates (ICRs) were calculated against the conventional reference method. Bacterial membrane rapid AST (BMR-AST) and positive blood culture medium rapid AST (PBCMR-AST) were performed using cultured bacterial membrane and raw positive BC medium, respectively, with results compared to conventional method.
resultsA total of 210 specimens were analysed for rapid ID. ICRs were 74.6% (88/118) for Gram-negative bacteria (GNB), 37.2% (29/78) for Gram-positive bacteria (GPB), and 14.3% (2/14) for fungi. BMR-AST yielded category agreement (CA) >96% for 58 GNB (96.8%, 1125/1162) and 24 Gram-positive cocci (GPC, 97.7%, 334/342), with essential agreement (EA) above 97% for both groups. PBCMR-AST achieved 94.1% CA (270/287) among 65 Enterobacterales; overall CA reached 94.7% (557/588) across 70 GNB and 28 GPC for additional antimicrobials.
conclusionThis rapid ID workflow performed well for GNB but suboptimally for GPB and fungi. Both rapid ASTs showed excellent concordance with the standard method for both GNB and GPC. These approaches can substantially shorten the turnaround time of positive BCs and hold promising clinical value for early BSI management.
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.