ArticleScientific reports2025
Isolation and identification of bacteria from blood within 12 h using standard laboratory equipment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Closing the sepsis gap: from molecular mechanisms to scalable bedside care.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Correlation of dielectrophoretic crossover frequency with optical density and plate counts for assessing Staphylococcus aureus concentration analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Recent Advances in Bacterial Separation and Enrichment from Blood for the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Plug-and-Play Centrifuge-Only Device for Rapid Sepsis Diagnosis.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- From Identification to Insight: Making Full Use of the Diagnostic Potential of MS/MS Proteotyping in Clinical Microbiology Using Efficient Bioinformatics.Journal of proteome research · 2025Review
- Culture-free detection of bacteria from blood for rapid sepsis diagnosis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis has an incidence of 50 million cases per year and represents a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Current diagnostic methods rely on blood drawn directly into blood culture media in hemoculture bottles, followed by culturing, often taking days to yield results and failing to meet urgent clinical needs. We present here a protocol for isolating and identifying bacteria from blood within 12 h after sampling, bypassing prior hemocultures. Starting from blood added into blood culture media, according to standard hospital sampling practice, we isolated up to 85% of bacteria at clinically-relevant concentrations in less than 15 min using an optimized centrifugation protocol. Subsequent overnight culture of the isolated bacteria on chromogenic agar plates enabled species identification of five of the most prevalent sepsis-causing bacteria. The rapidity and simplicity of the protocol may accelerate the diagnostic pipeline for sepsis patients. Moreover, the use of standard laboratory equipment may enable direct translation to clinical praxis and concatenation with downstream assays for antibiotic susceptibility testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.