The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical and Financial Benefits of Rapid Bacterial Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
Open accessAbstract
To assess the expected clinical and financial benefits of rapid reporting of microbiology results, we compared patients whose cultured samples were processed in the normal manner to patients whose samples were processed more rapidly due to a minor change in work flow. For the samples tested in the rapid-reporting time period, the vast majority of bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results were verified with the Vitek system on the same day that they were available. This time period was called rapid AST (RAST). For RAST, a technologist on the evening shift verified the data that became available during that shift. For the control time period, cultures were processed in the normal manner (normal AST [NAST]), which did not include evening-shift verification. For NAST, the results for approximately half of the cultures were verified on the first day that the result was available. The average turnaround time for the reporting of AST results was 39.2 h for RAST and 44.4 h for NAST (5.2 h faster for RAST [ P = 0.001]). Subsequently, physicians were able to initiate appropriate antimicrobial therapy sooner for patients whose samples were tested as part of RAST ( P = 0.006). The mortality rates were 7.9 and 9.6% for patients whose samples were tested as part of RAST and NAST, respectively ( P = 0.45). The average length of stay was 10.7 days per patient for RAST and 12.6 days for NAST, a difference of 2.0 days less for RAST ( P = 0.006). The average variable cost was $4,927 per patient for RAST and $6,677 for NAST, a difference of $1,750 less per patient for RAST ( P = 0.001). This results in over $4 million in savings in variable costs per year in our hospital.
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
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: A Review of General Principles and Contemporary Practices
Jorgensen, J. H., & Ferraro, M. J. (2009) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/647952 · Cited by 1,894
Banerjee, R., Teng, C. B., Cunningham, S. A., Ihde, S. M., Steckelberg, J. M., Moriarty, J. P., Shah, N. D., Mandrekar, J. N., & Patel, R. (2015) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/civ447 · Cited by 570
Maurer, F. P., Christner, M., Hentschke, M., & Rohde, H. (2017) · Infectious Disease Reports · doi:10.4081/idr.2017.6839 · Cited by 169
Metadata
- Authors
- Barenfanger, J., Drake, C., & Kacich, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1999-05
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1415-1418
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W2096039005
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.40
- 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: Clinical and Financial Benefits of Rapid Bacterial Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.37.5.1415-1418.1999
- The paper
- Barenfanger, J., Drake, C., & Kacich, G. (1999). Clinical and Financial Benefits of Rapid Bacterial Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.37.5.1415-1418.1999
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.