↓ Skip to main content

Laboratory automation reduces time to report of positive blood cultures and improves management of patients with bloodstream infection

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Laboratory automation reduces time to report of positive blood cultures and improves management of patients with bloodstream infection
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10096-018-3377-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giuseppe Vittorio De Socio, Francesco Di Donato, Riccardo Paggi, Chiara Gabrielli, Alessandra Belati, Giuseppe Rizza, Martina Savoia, Antonella Repetto, Elio Cenci, Antonella Mencacci

Abstract

The impact on time to results (TTR) and clinical decisions was evaluated for mono-microbial positive blood cultures (BC) processed using the BD Kiestra Work Cell Automation (WCA) system. Positive BC were processed by the WCA system by full-automatic subculture on solid media and digital imaging after 8 h of incubation (8-h method) followed by identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). To evaluate the accuracy of the 8-h method, ID and AST from 8-h and overnight incubated colonies were compared for the same organisms. To evaluate its clinical impact, results from 102 BC processed by the 8-h method (cases) were compared with those from 100 BC processed by overnight incubation method (controls) in a comparable period. Identification after 8-h and overnight incubation gave concordant results in 101/102 (99.0%) isolates. Among a total of 1379 microorganism-antimicrobial combinations, categorical agreement was 99.4% (1371/1379); no very major error, 7 major errors, and one minor error were observed. TTR in cases (32.8 h ± 8.3 h) was significantly (p < 0.001) shorter than in controls (55.4 h ± 13.3 h). A significant reduction was observed for duration of empirical therapy (cases 54.8 h ± 23.3 h vs controls 86.9 h ± 34.1 h, p < 0.001) and 30-day crude mortality rate (cases 16.7% vs controls 29.0%, p < 0.037). Automation and 8-h digital reading of plates from positive BC, followed by ID and AST, greatly reduce TTR and shorten the duration of antimicrobial empiric therapy, possibly improving outcome in patients with mono-microbial bloodstream infections.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 13%
Other 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 11 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Unspecified 4 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2018.
All research outputs
#18,649,291
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#2,194
of 2,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,957
of 337,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#42
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.