Cochrane · systematic review · CD013235
Rapid versus standard antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide treatment of bloodstream infection
Anton-Vazquez, V, Hine, P, Krishna, S, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · Cochrane Library
Infectious DiseasesAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 7 · 100%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Rapid susceptibility methods versus standard methods versus placebo for bloodstream infection
Population: people with bloodstream infections
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mortality Rapid susceptibility methods vs standard methods versus placebo | RR 1.1 [0.82, 1.46] | 6 studies · 1638 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Mortality (subgroup genotypic) Rapid susceptibility methods vs standard methods versus placebo | RR 1.02 [0.69, 1.49] | 4 studies · 1074 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Mortality (subgroup phenotypic) Rapid susceptibility methods vs standard methods versus placebo | RR 1.37 [0.8, 2.35] | 2 studies · 564 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Mortality (with stewardship) Rapid susceptibility methods vs standard methods versus placebo | RR 1.17 [0.81, 1.7] | 4 studies · 1404 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Mortality (without stewardship) Rapid susceptibility methods vs standard methods versus placebo | RR 0.89 [0.35, 2.27] | 2 studies · 234 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Time‐to‐discharge from hospital (days) Rapid susceptibility methods vs standard methods versus placebo | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 1165 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Time‐to‐appropriate antibiotic Rapid susceptibility methods vs standard methods versus placebo | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 1493 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |