Rapid susceptibility methods vs standard methods versus placebo: Mortality (subgroup genotypic)
Rapid susceptibility methods showed no clear difference in mortality (subgroup genotypic) compared with standard methods versus placebo (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Rapid susceptibility methods vs standard methods versus placebo Mortality (subgroup genotypic) · people with bloodstream infections Rapid susceptibility methods showed no clear difference in mortality (subgroup genotypic) compared with standard methods versus placebo (low certainty). Rapid versus standard antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide treatment of bloodstream infection (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.02 [0.69, 1.49] | 4 studies · 1074 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rapid versus standard antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide treatment of bloodstream infection 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.