Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42821013›Full record

ArticleBiomedical microdevices2026

Isolating viable bacteria from positive blood cultures: impedance cytometry analysis.

Daniel Nathan Tomás Cançado, Max Seidy Saito, Daniel Spencer, Hywel Morgan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical microdevices, 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

4 authors.

Daniel Nathan Tomás CançadoSchool of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Max Seidy SaitoSchool of Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Daniel SpencerSchool of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Hywel MorganSchool of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. hm@ecs.soton.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) lead to sepsis, an acute inflammatory response associated with high mortality. Current clinical treatment pathways rely on culture-based diagnostics to identify the infectious agent and determine its susceptibility to antibiotics, delaying targeted therapy. Recent approaches to accelerate this focus on the isolation of bacteria directly from blood cultures for rapid downstream analysis using haemolytic agents to replace the gold-standard purity plate subculture. However, many of these methods impact bacterial viability during the early stages of growth. Rapid phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing requires a pure inoculum of actively dividing bacteria to deliver early results (within 3 h), but most isolation chemistries are developed for mass spectrometry identification which does not require viable bacteria. This is particularly relevant for Gram-positive pathogens, as these are more susceptible to detergent agents used for haemolysis. This study investigated five different blood lysis protocols for the isolation of two different bacteria; Escherichia coli (Gram-negative) and Staphylococcus aureus (Gram-positive) from positive blood bottles. Bacterial viability was determined with microfluidic impedance cytometry and standard colony counting, which was also used to determine the extraction efficiency. For all five protocols, the numbers of extracted bacteria were generally high for the two organisms when determined with colony counting (following overnight incubation). However, when determined immediately after extraction with impedance cytometry, the counts were lower for S. aureus. The bacterial viability was also investigated with optical flow cytometry immediately after extraction showing inhibition of S. aureus growth with Sepsityper

Indexed as

Blood CultureEscherichia coliFlow CytometryMicrobial ViabilityStaphylococcus aureusElectric ImpedanceHumansAntimicrobial resistanceBacterial viabilityBloodstream infectionsElectroanalytical methodsMicrofluidic impedance cytometryMicrofluidicsOptical flow cytometryRapid phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testingSepsis diagnosticsSingle-cell analysis

Identifiers

PMID42821013
PMCPMC13630967

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.