The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Three-year experience with sonicated vascular catheter cultures in a clinical microbiology laboratory
Open accessAbstract
Using a quantitative sonication method, we cultured 1,681 consecutive vascular catheters submitted to a clinical microbiology laboratory in a 36-month period. A total of 46% of the cultures were positive; the most common organisms isolated were coagulase-negative staphylococci (36.4%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13.9%), enterococci (10.0%), yeasts (9.2%), Staphylococcus aureus (5.8%), and Enterobacter species (4.4%). The frequencies of positive blood cultures within 48 h prior to a positive catheter culture result were as follows: Candida albicans (68.4%), S. aureus (60%), Enterobacter cloacae (42.9%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (32.1%), P. aeruginosa (27.7%), and enterococci (23.3%). The sonication method allowed quantification of the number of CFU removed from a catheter for between 10(2) and 10(7) CFU. For catheter cultures in which greater than or equal to 10(2) CFU grew, a linear regression equation could be calculated: (risk of positive blood culture for the same organism) = 14 [log10 (number of organisms removed from the catheter)] -21 (r = 0.93). For catheter cultures in which less than 10(2) CFU grew, positive blood cultures for the same organism were strongly associated with a proven infection at a site distant from the catheter (P = 0.001) or probable contamination (S. epidermidis). Our findings indicate that this technique has considerable potential for use in clinical microbiology laboratories to aid in the diagnosis of vascular catheter infections and for clinical investigations into the pathogenesis of these infections.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Biofilms: Survival Mechanisms of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms
Donlan, R. M., & Costerton, J. W. (2002) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.15.2.167-193.2002 · Cited by 6,644
Mermel, L. A., Allon, M., Bouza, E., Craven, D. E., Flynn, P., O'Grady, N. P., Raad, I. I., Rijnders, B. J. A., Sherertz, R. J., & Warren, D. K. (2009) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/599376 · Cited by 3,638
Self-citationGuidelines for the management of intravascular catheter-related infections
Mermel, L. A., Farr, B. M., Sherertz, R. J., Raad, I. I., O'Grady, N., Harris, J. S., & Craven, D. E. (2001) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/320001 · Cited by 1,449
Self-citationBiofilm Formation: A Clinically Relevant Microbiological Process
Donlan, R. M. (2001) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/322972 · Cited by 1,343
A Comparison of Two Antimicrobial-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters
Darouiche, R. O., Raad, I. I., Heard, S. O., Thornby, J. I., Wenker, O. C., Gabrielli, A., Berg, J., Khardori, N., Hanna, H., Hachem, R., et al. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199901073400101 · Cited by 804
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sherertz, R. J., Raad, I. I., Belani, A., Koo, L. C., Rand, K. H., Pickett, D. L., Straub, S. A., & Fauerbach, L. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1990-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 76-82
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W1949131150
- Cited by
- 381
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Three-year experience with sonicated vascular catheter cultures in a clinical microbiology laboratory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.28.1.76-82.1990
- The paper
- Sherertz, R. J., Raad, I. I., Belani, A., Koo, L. C., Rand, K. H., Pickett, D. L., Straub, S. A., & Fauerbach, L. L. (1990). Three-year experience with sonicated vascular catheter cultures in a clinical microbiology laboratory. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.28.1.76-82.1990
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.