Blood Culture: Principles, Procedures, Interpretation, and Advances in Diagnostic Microbiology

Table of Contents

• Introduction to Blood Culture
• Principle of Blood Culture
• Indications for Blood Culture Testing
• Blood Sample Collection for Culture
• Blood Culture Media and Bottles
• Manual Blood Culture Method
• Automated Blood Culture Method
• Manual vs Automated Blood Culture: Comparative Analysis
• What Happens When a Blood Culture Becomes Positive?
• Common Organisms Isolated from Positive Blood Cultures
• Blood Culture Contamination
• Quality Control in Blood Culture Testing
• Recent Advances in Blood Culture Technology
• References

Introduction to Blood Culture

Blood culture is central to diagnosing infections that have spread into the bloodstream. These tests guide life‑saving antibiotic choices and remain the reference method despite many new rapid technologies.

Definition of Blood Culture

• Blood culture is a method where a blood sample from a patient suspected of a bloodstream infection (BSI) is inoculated into a bottle containing nutrient broth that supports microbial growth (Ombelet et al., 2019).
• Because microbial numbers in blood are usually very low, direct plating on agar is not sensitive enough; the broth allows bacteria or fungi to multiply until growth is detectable (Opota et al., 2015; Ombelet et al., 2019).
• When growth is detected, laboratories perform a Gram stain, identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing on the recovered organism (Opota et al., 2015; Ombelet et al., 2019; Fabre et al., 2021).

Clinical Importance of Blood Culture

• BSIs and sepsis carry high morbidity and mortality worldwide and are a major public health concern (Lamy et al., 2016; Lamy et al., 2019; Fabre et al., 2021; Marchel & Wróblewska, 2021; Ombelet et al., 2019).
• Blood culture is described as the gold standard and “reference method” for diagnosing BSIs and enabling susceptibility testing of the pathogen (Lamy et al., 2016; Lamy et al., 2019; Olga et al., 2019; Opota et al., 2015; Fabre et al., 2021; Marchel & Wróblewska, 2021; Peri et al., 2021; Boakye-Yiadom et al., 2023; Ombelet et al., 2019; Weinstein & Doern, 2011).
• Rapid or even preliminary blood culture results (e.g., Gram stain) can significantly impact antibiotic choice, length of hospital stay, and survival (Opota et al., 2015; Ombelet et al., 2019).
• Poor collection (too little blood, contamination) leads to false negatives or false positives, misdiagnosis, unnecessary antibiotics, and prolonged hospitalization (Fabre et al., 2021; Bunn & Cornish, 2025; Soedarmono et al., 2022; Boakye-Yiadom et al., 2023).

Key Roles of Blood Culture

Role in Care	How It Helps	Citations
Confirm BSI and Identify Pathogen	Distinguishes true bloodstream infection from other causes of fever and supports accurate diagnosis.	(Lamy et al., 2016; Olga et al., 2019; Opota et al., 2015; Fabre et al., 2021; Marchel & Wróblewska, 2021; Ombelet et al., 2019; Soedarmono et al., 2022)
Guide Targeted Antibiotics	Antimicrobial susceptibility testing enables clinicians to adjust therapy within approximately 48–72 hours.	(Olga et al., 2019; Opota et al., 2015; Fabre et al., 2021; Marchel & Wróblewska, 2021; Tjandra et al., 2022; Peri et al., 2021; Iyer et al., 2024)
Support Stewardship & AMR Surveillance	Tracks antimicrobial resistance trends and informs rational antibiotic use across healthcare settings.	(Lamy et al., 2019; Olga et al., 2019; Fabre et al., 2021; Tjandra et al., 2022; Boakye-Yiadom et al., 2023; Soedarmono et al., 2022)

Table 1: Main clinical functions of blood culture in BSI care

Role in Diagnosing Bloodstream Infections

• Diagnosis of BSI relies on documenting pathogens in blood—bacteremia or fungemia—primarily through blood cultures (Lamy et al., 2016; Lamy et al., 2019; Opota et al., 2015; Fabre et al., 2021; Marchel & Wróblewska, 2021; Ombelet et al., 2019).
• Blood cultures are crucial both in adults and children, but require careful attention to timing, volume, and bottle selection for optimal yield (Fabre et al., 2021; Marchel & Wróblewska, 2021; Bard & Tekippe, 2016; O’Hagan et al., 2021).
• Even in settings with advanced molecular tests, blood culture remains the first-line tool; molecular methods are viewed as complements to speed identification and resistance detection, not replacements (Lamy et al., 2019; Fabre et al., 2021; Peker et al., 2018; Tjandra et al., 2022; Peri et al., 2021; Iyer et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2025).
• In low‑ and middle‑income countries, properly implemented blood cultures are emphasized as high‑value diagnostics despite resource constraints (Boakye-Yiadom et al., 2023; Ombelet et al., 2019; Soedarmono et al., 2022).

Principle of Blood Culture

Blood culture is the gold standard test for diagnosing bloodstream infections because normally blood is sterile and even small numbers of bacteria or fungi are clinically important (Ombelet et al., 2019; Lamy et al., 2016; Nath et al., 2023; Mitchell et al., 2018; Kirn & Weinstein, 2013).

• Why broth is needed: In true bloodstream infection, the bacterial concentration is very low, so direct plating onto agar is usually insensitive. The blood–broth system first amplifies organisms to detectable levels (Ombelet et al., 2019; Lamy et al., 2016).
• Incubation: Bottles are incubated at ~35–37 °C in either a standard incubator (manual systems) or an automated, continuously monitored instrument (Ombelet et al., 2019; Lamy et al., 2016; Nath et al., 2023; Kirn & Weinstein, 2013).
• Detection of growth:
• Manual: bottles are inspected daily for turbidity, gas, or other visible signs of growth (Ombelet et al., 2019; Nath et al., 2023).
• Automated: instruments detect changes (e.g., CO₂ production, pressure, or electrical/optical signals) and flag bottles positive without routine manual subculture (Halperin et al., 2022; Menchinelli et al., 2019; Nd, 1975; Kirn & Weinstein, 2013; Holland et al., 1980).

Examples of Detection Technologies

System / Method	Detection Principle (Simplified)	Citations
Conventional Manual Broth	Visual observation of microbial growth indicators such as turbidity, gas production, and hemolysis.	(Ombelet et al., 2019; Nath et al., 2023)
Automated BACTEC / BacT/Alert / Virtuo	Continuous automated monitoring of microbial metabolic activity through changes such as carbon dioxide production.	(Halperin et al., 2022; Menchinelli et al., 2019; Ransom et al., 2020; Kirn & Weinstein, 2013; Ziegler et al., 1998; Snyder et al., 2025)
Pressure-Based Visual Signal System	Microbial growth generates gas pressure, forcing broth upward into a visible signal chamber.	(Nd, 1975)
Electrode-Based Electronic Detection	Growth-related biochemical activity alters electrical signals detected by stainless-steel electrodes in broth.	(Holland et al., 1980)

Table 2: Different technical principles used to detect growth in blood culture systems

When Are Blood Cultures Indicated?

Blood cultures are essential to diagnose bloodstream infection but are overused when ordered for fever alone. Research focuses on selecting patients with a meaningful pretest probability of bacteremia so benefits outweigh false positives and costs.

Clear indications where routine cultures are supported:

• Sepsis or septic shock / serious infection in ED or ICU: sepsis guidelines and reviews consider blood cultures central to initial workup and targeted therapy (Berninghausen et al., 2024; Timsit et al., 2020; Scheer et al., 2019).
• Endovascular / endocarditis or suspected bacteremia: endocarditis, infected intravascular catheters, other endovascular infections are high pretest probability; cultures are routinely recommended (Fabre et al., 2020; Long & Koyfman, 2016; Timsit et al., 2020; Kok, 2024; Freling et al., 2025; Shapiro et al., 2008).
• Complicated focal infections: meningitis, complicated pyelonephritis, health care–associated pneumonia, and other serious infections where bacteremia changes management (Long & Koyfman, 2016; Del Río et al., 2025; Peri et al., 2021).
• Suspected sepsis in surgery/trauma patients (e.g., NEWS2 ≥5): guidance recommends blood cultures before first IV antibiotics if this does not delay treatment (Butt et al., 2025; Egwuenu et al., 2021).

Examples of High vs Low Indication Contexts

Clinical Context	Indication Strength for Blood Cultures	Citations
Sepsis / Septic Shock, ICU / Emergency Department	Strong: Obtain at least two blood culture sets before initiating antibiotic therapy whenever possible.	(Berninghausen et al., 2024; Long & Koyfman, 2016; Timsit et al., 2020; Scheer et al., 2019)
Suspected Endocarditis / Endovascular Infection	Strong: Both initial and selected follow-up blood cultures are recommended for diagnosis and monitoring.	(Fabre et al., 2020; Long & Koyfman, 2016; Kok, 2024; Freling et al., 2025; Shapiro et al., 2008)
Simple Cellulitis, Simple Pyelonephritis, Uncomplicated CAP	Generally Not Recommended: Low diagnostic yield with increased likelihood of contamination or false-positive results.	(Long & Koyfman, 2016; Fabre et al., 2020; Fabre et al., 2021)

Table 3: Relative strength of indications for blood cultures

Low-Yield or Conditional Indications

• Fever, leukocytosis alone are poor predictors; many cultures drawn only for these are negative and drive overuse (Fabre et al., 2020; Fabre et al., 2021; Linsenmeyer et al., 2016; Timsit et al., 2020; Ravindranath & Baird, 2020).
• For low-yield syndromes, cultures may be considered only if missing bacteremia would be high-risk (e.g., patient with pacemaker and severe cellulitis) (Fabre et al., 2020).
• Clinical rules (e.g., Shapiro rule) use combinations of fever, age, hypotension, labs to define when cultures are indicated; ≥1 major or ≥2 minor criteria signal need for cultures, otherwise they may be omitted (Shapiro et al., 2008).

Timing and Follow-Up Cultures

• Before antibiotics: blood drawn after antibiotics has much lower positivity (≈51% vs 28%) (Scheer et al., 2019); guidelines stress obtaining cultures as early as possible once sepsis is suspected (Berninghausen et al., 2024; Timsit et al., 2020; Scheer et al., 2019).
• Routine follow-up cultures are often unnecessary in streptococcal or Enterobacterales bacteremia when source control is adequate and no endovascular concern (Fabre et al., 2020); in endocarditis, repeated “survey” cultures after starting therapy generally are not needed (Kok, 2024).

Blood Culture Collection

Safe, accurate blood culture collection depends on good technique at every step: preparing the patient, choosing the site, antisepsis, volume, number and timing of sets, and strict contamination control. These factors strongly affect both pathogen detection and false‑positive rates (Garcia et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2022; Temkin et al., 2022; Snyder et al., 2012).

Patient Prep, Site Selection, Skin Antisepsis

Patient preparation & site choice

• Use venipuncture rather than drawing through IV catheters whenever possible to reduce contamination (Snyder et al., 2012).
• In critically ill adults, arterial catheters can be an acceptable alternative to venipuncture when peripheral access is difficult, with similar contamination rates if strict asepsis and closed systems are used (Nakayama et al., 2023; Koroki et al., 2025; Ota, 2023).

Skin antisepsis

• Alcohol‑based antiseptics before needle insertion significantly reduce contamination versus aqueous povidone‑iodine (Caldeira et al., 2011).
• Alcoholic chlorhexidine is particularly effective compared with non‑alcoholic povidone‑iodine (Caldeira et al., 2011).
• Standardized protocols (adequate contact time, letting antiseptic dry) are emphasized to reduce heterogeneity and contamination (Caldeira et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2015; Bowens & Beavers, 2025).

Recommended Antiseptic Approaches

Approach	Effect on Contamination	Citations
Alcoholic Chlorhexidine vs Aqueous Povidone-Iodine	Markedly lower blood culture contamination rates.	(Caldeira et al., 2011)
Any Alcohol-Based vs Non-Alcoholic Antiseptic	Lower overall contamination rates across blood culture collection procedures.	(Caldeira et al., 2011)

Table 4: Impact of antiseptic choice on contamination risk

Volume, Number of Sets, Timing

Recommended blood volume (adults)

• Blood volume is the major determinant of positivity; each additional mL increases odds of detection (e.g., ~13% relative increase per mL) (Henning et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2022).
• Adult guidance: ~8–10 mL per bottle, ≥20 mL per set (1 aerobic + 1 anaerobic) (Lin et al., 2022; Towns et al., 2010).

Number of sets

• In adults, 2 sets detect ~90% of bloodstream infections; 3–4 sets raise detection to ~98–99% (Lee et al., 2006; Towns et al., 2010; Aronson & Bor, 1987).
• Solitary sets are common and lead to many missed infections (Temkin et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2022).

Timing of sample collection

• Collect before antibiotics; drawing after therapy begins likely lowers positivity (Temkin et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2022).
• With modern continuous monitoring, short vs longer intervals between sets (minutes vs tens of minutes) give similar yield, so sets can be drawn close together in urgent situations (Fabre et al., 2022).

Pediatric Blood Culture Collection

• Pediatric blood volume is limited; optimal volume is debated. Sensitivity, specificity and time to positivity all depend on volume, and low‑level bacteremia is common (Huber et al., 2020; Isaacman et al., 1996; Whelan et al., 2024).
• Weight‑ or age‑based schemes (e.g., ~1–1.5 mL for <11 kg; higher volumes for heavier children) are suggested, but no single standard is dominant (Huber et al., 2020; Whelan et al., 2024).
• Multiple cultures with age‑appropriate volume before antibiotics increase pathogen yield and improve antimicrobial decisions (Tran et al., 2020; Isaacman et al., 1996).

Precautions to Prevent Contamination

Preferred techniques and systems

• Use venipuncture (or arterial catheter with strict asepsis in ICU) rather than central venous catheters, which have higher contamination (Nakayama et al., 2023; Snyder et al., 2012; Ota, 2023).
• Dedicated, well‑trained phlebotomy teams significantly reduce contamination (Snyder et al., 2012).

Process and education

• Comprehensive programs: staff training, standardized prep kits/protocols, monitoring volumes, feedback, and reminder systems reduce solitary sets, improve volumes, and lower contamination (Garcia et al., 2015; Whelan et al., 2024; Temkin et al., 2022; Bowens & Beavers, 2025).

Blood Culture Media and Bottles

Blood culture systems use nutrient broths and different bottle types (aerobic, anaerobic, and specialized) to maximize recovery of bacteria and fungi from blood.

Composition of Blood Culture Media

• Many modern bottles are based on rich broths such as brain–heart infusion (BHI) or tryptic soy broth, optimized for fastidious and common blood pathogens (Kargaltseva et al., 2020; Julander et al., 1983; Birhanu et al., 2025).
• Brain–heart media supported aerobic, microaerophilic, and anaerobic organisms better than thioglycollate and glucose broths, giving more mono‑ and polymicrobial hemocultures (Kargaltseva et al., 2020).
• Commercial systems (BacT/Alert, BACTEC) use carbohydrate substrates and detect CO₂ produced during growth; newer “Plus” media incorporate antibiotic‑binding resins or beads to improve recovery in patients on antibiotics (Fiori et al., 2014; Lamy et al., 2016; Kirn et al., 2013; Menchinelli et al., 2019).

Examples of Media Bases

Medium / System	Key Features	Citations
Brain–Heart Infusion	Broad pathogen growth support; suitable for both aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms.	(Kargaltseva et al., 2020; Julander et al., 1983)
Tryptic Soy Broth	Standard enrichment broth commonly used in conventional manual blood culture bottles.	(Birhanu et al., 2025)
FA/FN Plus (BacT/Alert)	Contains resin beads for antibiotic neutralization, improved organism recovery, and earlier detection.	(Fiori et al., 2014; Kirn et al., 2013)

Table 5: Common broths and enhanced media in blood culture systems

Aerobic Blood Culture Bottles

• Contain broth plus a headspace with air/CO₂ to support aerobic and many facultative anaerobic bacteria and yeasts (Ombelet et al., 2019).
• In comparisons of BacT/Alert Plus vs BACTEC Plus, aerobic bottles differed in yield by organism group (better Gram‑positive recovery in BacT/Alert; better Gram‑negative in BACTEC) but overall BSI diagnosis was similar (Fiori et al., 2014).
• Aerobic “FAN” or Plus bottles perform well even when patients receive antibiotics, especially when combined with resins/charcoal (Lamy et al., 2016; Kirn et al., 2013; Pohlman et al., 1995).

Anaerobic Blood Culture Bottles

• Use a reduced broth and headspace with CO₂ and nitrogen, supporting obligate anaerobes and many facultative organisms (Ombelet et al., 2019).
• Large clinical series show routine anaerobic bottles detect additional BSIs and often give faster positivity for Staphylococcus aureus and other facultative pathogens (Ransom & Burnham, 2022; Lafaurie et al., 2020).
• In adults and children, many isolates (including facultative bacteria) are found only in anaerobic bottles, supporting their routine inclusion when sufficient blood can be drawn (Ransom & Burnham, 2022; Lafaurie et al., 2020; Noh et al., 2023; Mitchell et al., 2018).

Specialized Culture Bottles

• Myco/F Lytic and Mycosis IC/F bottles are designed for fungi (and, for Myco/F, mycobacteria), with prolonged incubation (up to 42 days) and improved detection of candidemia and other fungemias compared with standard aerobic/anaerobic bottles (Ye et al., 2023; Borges et al., 2025).
• These specialized bottles show higher positivity rates for fungal BSIs in high‑risk groups such as HIV patients and simulated fungemia models, but are more expensive and less available in low‑resource settings (Ye et al., 2023; Borges et al., 2025; Ombelet et al., 2019).

Manual Blood Culture Method

Manual blood culture is widely used in low- and middle-income settings, where bottles are incubated in a standard incubator and inspected visually, rather than by automated instruments (Ombelet et al., 2019; Ombelet et al., 2021; Von Laer et al., 2021; Hardy et al., 2024).

Principle of Manual Blood Culture

• Blood is inoculated into broth that supports microbial growth; bottles are incubated at ~35–37 °C and inspected once or twice daily for visual signs of growth such as turbidity, gas, hemolysis, or surface film (Ombelet et al., 2019; Ombelet et al., 2021; Von Laer et al., 2021; Hardy et al., 2024).
• Sensitivity depends on adequate blood volume and careful daily reading under standardized lighting (often a lightbox) (Ombelet et al., 2019; Ombelet et al., 2021; Hardy et al., 2024).

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Inoculate recommended blood volume into manual bottles, label, and transport promptly to the lab (Turan et al., 2018; Ombelet et al., 2019; Von Laer et al., 2021).
• Place bottles in a static incubator at 35–37 °C (Ombelet et al., 2019; Ombelet et al., 2021; Von Laer et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2020; Hardy et al., 2024).
• Inspect visually at defined intervals; when growth is suspected, perform Gram stain and subculture to appropriate solid media (Ombelet et al., 2019; Ombelet et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2025; Von Laer et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2020).

Incubation Conditions

• Manual systems typically incubate 7 days at 35 °C (Ombelet et al., 2019; Ombelet et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2025; Von Laer et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2020; Hardy et al., 2024).
• Most clinically important isolates are recovered by day 5; later positives are often contaminants (Ombelet et al., 2019; Ling et al., 2021).
• Bottles should be kept at ≤25 °C before incubation; delays ≥24 h at 40 °C reduce yield (Ling et al., 2021).

Daily Observation of Bottles

• Bottles are inspected once or twice daily; signs assessed include turbidity, hemolysis, gas, clots/pellicle, indicator color change, or colonies on slants (Ombelet et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2025; Von Laer et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2020; Hardy et al., 2024).
• Standardized background and diffuse light (lightbox) improve detection and reduce subjectivity (Ombelet et al., 2019; Ombelet et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2025; Hardy et al., 2024).

Signs of Positive Growth

• Visual signs in manual systems:
• Cloudy broth, red cell lysis, gas bubbles, surface film, or visible colonies on agar slant; some bottles also have a color indicator (Ombelet et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2025; Von Laer et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2020; Hardy et al., 2024).
• Automated-equivalent manuals (e.g., manual use of BacT/ALERT) also rely on indicator color change assessed visually (Ombelet et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2025; Von Laer et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2020).

Subculturing Procedure

When:

At first visible growth, plus scheduled blind subcultures at day 1 or 2 and sometimes again later to speed detection and avoid missed positives (Ombelet et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2025; Von Laer et al., 2021; Ling et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2020).

How:

• Aseptically withdraw broth and inoculate appropriate solid media (e.g., blood, chocolate, MacConkey, Sabouraud); incubate 24–48 h at 35–37 °C, with CO₂ as needed (Ombelet et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2025; Von Laer et al., 2021; Ling et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2020).
• Gram stain is done at the time of visual growth or blind subculture (Turan et al., 2018; Ombelet et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2025; Von Laer et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2020).

Interpretation of Results

• True positive: Organism seen on Gram stain and recovered on subculture from a bottle with appropriate incubation time and clinical context (Turan et al., 2018; Ombelet et al., 2021; Von Laer et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2020).
• False positive signal (no true growth): Bottle signals or appears abnormal but shows no organism on Gram/acridine orange and no growth on plates after extended incubation; such bottles are interpreted as false positives (Turan et al., 2018; Von Laer et al., 2021).
• Negative culture: No visual growth and no organism on blind or terminal subculture by end of the defined incubation period (often 5–7 days) (Ombelet et al., 2019; Ombelet et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2025; Von Laer et al., 2021; Ling et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2020).

Automated Blood Culture Systems

Automated blood culture systems continuously monitor inoculated bottles to detect microbial growth faster and with less manual work than conventional methods. They improve time to detection, turnaround time, and often clinical outcomes in bloodstream infections.

Introduction to Automated Systems

• Automated continuous‑monitoring blood culture systems (CMBCS) are now a cornerstone of clinical microbiology labs (Buchan, 2022; Ombelet et al., 2019).
• They replace daily manual inspection with instrument‑based incubation, agitation, and growth monitoring, shortening time to detection and hands‑on time (Fabre et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2019; Nath et al., 2023).

Working Principle and Detection Technologies

• Core principle: bottles with blood + broth are incubated while the system continuously senses microbial metabolism, mainly via CO₂ production (Ombelet et al., 2019; Dilnessa et al., 2016).
• Systems use colorimetric, fluorescent, infrared, or pressure/electronic sensors to detect CO₂ or related changes and automatically flag bottles positive (Ombelet et al., 2019; Dilnessa et al., 2016).
• Examples:
• BACTEC systems use infrared spectrophotometry with fluorescent CO₂ sensors (Dilness.a et al., 2016).
• Many BacT/Alert systems monitor CO₂ colorimetrically or fluorometrically (Ombelet et al., 2019; Menchinelli et al., 2019).

Detection Speed in Different Systems

System (Examples)	Typical Effect on Time to Detection (TTD)	Citations
BacT/Alert VIRTUO vs BACTEC FX	VIRTUO demonstrates approximately 1–2 hours faster detection in both in vitro and clinical evaluations.	(Qin et al., 2024; Menchinelli et al., 2019; Halperin et al., 2022)
Automated vs Manual Bottles	Significantly shorter detection time; 82–91.6% of positive cultures detected within 24 hours using automated systems, compared with slower manual detection.	(Ombelet et al., 2019)
New CMBCS vs Incumbent Systems	Approximately 2 hours faster detection for several commonly encountered bacterial species under simulated conditions.	(Ahn et al., 2025)

Table 6: Comparison of detection speed across automated systems

Automated Monitoring Process

• Bottles are loaded, scanned into the information system, incubated and continuously agitated and monitored 24/7; positive signals trigger alerts for immediate Gram stain and subculture (Qin et al., 2025; Fabre et al., 2021; Halperin et al., 2022).
• Automation can also handle automatic unloading, subculture, and auto‑reporting of negatives, further reducing turnaround time (e.g., from ~96 h to ~61 h to final report) (Qin et al., 2025; De Socio et al., 2018).

Common Automated Blood Culture Systems

• Widely used CMBCS include BacT/Alert (3D, VIRTUO), BACTEC FX, VersaTREK, and emerging systems such as HubCentra84 and several affordable Chinese platforms (Autobio BC60, Mindray TDR60, Labstar50, DL‑60) (Fabre et al., 2021; Dilnessa et al., 2016; Qin et al., 2024; Hardy et al., 2024; Ahn et al., 2025; Menchinelli et al., 2019).
• These systems generally show high yield and specificity (≈97–100%) and good interchangeability of bottles in vitro (Hardy et al., 2024; Menchinelli et al., 2019).

Step‑by‑Step Workflow (Automated Method)

1. Blood collection into commercial bottles.
2. Bottle loading & registration in the incubator (e.g., Virtuo, BACTEC FX) (Qin et al., 2025; Fabre et al., 2021; Halperin et al., 2022).
3. Continuous incubation/monitoring until positive signal or predefined maximum (often 5 days) (Fabre et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2019; Von Laer et al., 2021).
4. When positive:
• Immediate Gram stain and subculture; many labs now use total laboratory automation (TLA) or work‑cell systems for fully automated plating and imaging (Qin et al., 2025; Mitchell et al., 2019; De Socio et al., 2018).
• Identification (often MALDI‑TOF MS) and AST by instruments such as Vitek 2 (Qin et al., 2025; Mitchell et al., 2019; De Socio et al., 2018).
5. Automated reporting of negative bottles at end of incubation and electronic reporting of ID/AST (Qin et al., 2025; Mitchell et al., 2019; De Socio et al., 2018).

Result Interpretation

• Key time metrics defined in automated systems include:
• Time to detection (TTD): loading → first positivity signal.
• Turnaround time (TAT): loading → Gram stain report.
• Time to ID / AST: loading → final identification / susceptibility report (Halperin et al., 2022).
• Faster TTD/TAT with systems like VIRTUO and automated post‑analytic workflows correlate with earlier optimal therapy, shorter empirical treatment, shorter stays, and sometimes reduced mortality in bloodstream infection patients (Qin et al., 2025; De Socio et al., 2018; Halperin et al., 2022; Nath et al., 2023).

Manual vs Automated Blood Culture: Overall Comparison

Research consistently shows that automated blood culture systems detect more bloodstream infections and do so faster than manual methods, but manual systems remain important in low‑resource settings due to lower cost and simpler infrastructure needs (Von Laer et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2019; Ombelet et al., 2021).

Method Comparison Table Key Performance Differences

Aspect	Manual Blood Culture	Automated Blood Culture	Citations
Detection Rate (Yield)	Often lower in clinical use (approximately 10.3–48%).	Higher yield (approximately 15.3–60%) with improved sensitivity.	(Von Laer et al., 2021; Nath et al., 2023; Buchan, 2022; Khizar et al., 2020)
Time to Detection	Longer detection times (24–48+ hours; many positives after 2–10 days).	Much shorter detection time, often within 12–24 hours; majority detected within 24–48 hours.	(Nath et al., 2023; Ombelet et al., 2019; Buchan, 2022; Fabre et al., 2021; Menchinelli et al., 2019)
False-Positive Bottle Signals	Higher false-positive signal rates (e.g., up to 40.2%).	Much lower false-positive signal rates (e.g., 5.6%).	(Von Laer et al., 2021; Ombelet et al., 2021)
Infrastructure Needs	Requires standard incubator and visual observation with minimal equipment.	Requires dedicated instrument, stable electricity supply, and routine maintenance.	(Ombelet et al., 2019; Fabre et al., 2021; Hardy et al., 2024)
Cost & Suitability in LMICs	Lower cost, more adaptable to resource-limited and tropical settings.	Higher cost; may be less robust in dusty or high-temperature environments.	(Ombelet et al., 2019; Ombelet et al., 2021; Hardy et al., 2024)

Table 7: Core performance and infrastructure contrasts between methods

Advantages of Manual Method

• Feasible in low‑ and middle‑income countries: Can be done with standard incubators and visual inspection; no expensive instruments (Ombelet et al., 2019; Ombelet et al., 2021).
• Good analytical performance in vitro: Yield ≈96% and specificity ≈100%, comparable to automated BacT/Alert in simulated studies (Ombelet et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2024).
• Flexible, low‑tech: Usable where power, maintenance, and supply chains for consumables are unreliable (Ombelet et al., 2019; Hardy et al., 2024; Ombelet et al., 2021).

Limitations of Manual Method

• Slower time to detection: Only 65.8–94% positive by 48 h vs 82–91.6% within 24 h in automated systems; total incubation up to 7–10 days (Ombelet et al., 2019; Von Laer et al., 2021; Buchan, 2022; Ombelet et al., 2021).
• Labor‑intensive and subjective: Requires daily visual reading and often blind subculture; increased workload and contamination risk (Ombelet et al., 2019; Ombelet et al., 2021).
• Higher false‑positive signals and missed infections: More bottles signal without growth; some pathogens detected only by automated systems or missed by manual in clinical comparisons (Von Laer et al., 2021; Nath et al., 2023; , 2025).

Advantages of Automated Method

• Higher sensitivity and positivity rates: Numerous clinical and pediatric studies show higher detection (e.g., 15.3% vs 10.3%; 60% vs 48%; five‑fold increases in some settings) (Von Laer et al., 2021; Nath et al., 2023; Buchan, 2022; Khizar et al., 2020; , 2025).
• Much faster detection and reporting: Time to positivity and Gram report reduced by ~2.5–3 days vs manual (Von Laer et al., 2021; Buchan, 2022); most positives within 24–48 h (Ombelet et al., 2019; LekshmiRajan et al., 2017; Ombelet et al., 2021; Menchinelli et al., 2019).
• Lower false‑positive signals: Markedly fewer bottles flag positive without growth (Von Laer et al., 2021).
• Supports broader automation: Integration with automated subculture, ID, and AST reduces turnaround from ~96 h to ~61 h and shortens hospital stay and costs (Qin et al., 2025; De Socio et al., 2018; Mitchell et al., 2019).

Limitations of Automated Method

• High upfront and operating cost; maintenance needs: Often too expensive, not robust for heat/dust, and dependent on a stable supply chain and power, limiting use in many LMIC labs (Ombelet et al., 2019; Hardy et al., 2024; Ombelet et al., 2021).
• May not improve outcomes automatically: Even “improved” systems mainly alter workflow; patient outcomes may not change unless paired with good clinical use and stewardship (Buchan, 2022; Fabre et al., 2021).

What Happens After a Blood Culture Turns Positive?

When a blood culture becomes positive, the lab moves quickly from automated detection to organism identification and susceptibility testing, because each time step affects therapy and outcomes.

Positive Detection Alert & Immediate Laboratory Actions

• Automated systems (e.g., BACTEC, BacT/Alert Virtuo) continuously monitor bottles and flag them positive when growth is detected (Menchinelli et al., 2019; Jacobs et al., 2017).
• Positive bottles trigger critical alerts; many labs notify clinicians or pharmacists in real time, sometimes via phone, pager, or electronic in‑basket alerts (Chandler et al., 2022; Caulder et al., 2018; Adams & Kaur, 2023).
• In routine hours, labs immediately begin processing: Gram stain and subculture are set up as soon as a bottle flags positive (Qin et al., 2025; Attaway et al., 2024; Menchinelli et al., 2019; Aslam et al., 2024).

Gram Staining & Preliminary Reporting

• Gram stain of the positive broth is the first diagnostic step and is usually done immediately during working hours (Qin et al., 2025; Attaway et al., 2024; Kp et al., 2022).
• Gram stain reports (e.g., “Gram‑positive cocci in clusters”) are highly accurate, with sensitivities ~91–100% and specificities ~99–100% for major morphologic groups (Søgaard et al., 2007; Kp et al., 2022).
• These preliminary Gram results are phoned or electronically reported rapidly and can change therapy even before full ID/AST, though their impact is smaller than full ID and susceptibilities (Meda et al., 2016; Walsh et al., 2013; Tierney et al., 1983).

Subculture & Colony Morphology

• Positive bottles are subcultured onto solid media (e.g., blood and MacConkey agar) and incubated ~24 h at 35–37 °C (Qin et al., 2025; Attaway et al., 2024; Menchinelli et al., 2019; Aslam et al., 2024).
• After incubation, colonies are examined for morphology (appearance, hemolysis, lactose fermentation, etc.), aiding in preliminary ID before instrument-based methods (Attaway et al., 2024; Menchinelli et al., 2019).

Key Downstream Steps from a Positive Bottle

Step	Main Purpose	Citations
Subculture to Plates	Obtain isolated colonies for organism identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST).	(Qin et al., 2025; Attaway et al., 2024; Menchinelli et al., 2019; Aslam et al., 2024)
Colony Review	Assess colony morphology for preliminary clues, such as distinguishing Staphylococcus aureus from enteric Gram-negative rods.	(Attaway et al., 2024; Menchinelli et al., 2019)
Rapid ID from Broth / Colonies	Enable species-level identification within hours using rapid diagnostic methods.	(Qin et al., 2025; Hyman et al., 2016; Martinez et al., 2014; Walsh et al., 2013)
AST Setup & Read	Determine antimicrobial susceptibility patterns to guide definitive therapy.	(Qin et al., 2025; Attaway et al., 2024; Menchinelli et al., 2019)

Table 8: Core post-positivity laboratory processing steps

Identification & Susceptibility Testing

Identification (ID):

• Standard workflows use MALDI‑TOF MS on subculture growth; in some labs, ID is available the day after positivity (Qin et al., 2025; Attaway et al., 2024; Menchinelli et al., 2019).
• Rapid methods can identify organisms directly from positive broth using MALDI‑TOF (with Sepsityper), fluorescence spectroscopy, or molecular panels, often with ≥80–95% concordance to routine ID and results in minutes–hours (Hyman et al., 2016; Martinez et al., 2014; Walsh et al., 2013).

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST):

• AST is commonly done with automated systems (e.g., Vitek 2) after sufficient colony growth; results may follow ID by several hours to a day (Qin et al., 2025; Attaway et al., 2024; Menchinelli et al., 2019).
• Full automation and rule‑based expert systems allow automatic review and upload of AST into the lab information system, shortening time from collection to final AST report from ~96 h to ~61 h in one study (Qin et al., 2025).

Final Laboratory Report

• The final report integrates: organism ID, full AST, and comments on possible contaminants vs true pathogens (Qin et al., 2025; Attaway et al., 2024; Menchinelli et al., 2019; Jacobs et al., 2017).
• Automation and rapid methods significantly reduce time from collection to final report, leading to earlier optimal therapy, shorter length of stay, and reduced costs, especially in gram‑negative bacteremia (Qin et al., 2025; Patel & Rivera, 2023; Adams & Kaur, 2023).

Common Organisms in Positive Blood Cultures

Across hospitals and populations, positive blood cultures are dominated by a relatively consistent group of Gram‑positive cocci, Gram‑negative bacilli, and yeasts that cause bloodstream infection.

Gram-Positive Bacteria

Most frequent groups:

• Coagulase‑negative staphylococci (CoNS) are often the single most common Gram‑positive isolate in adults and children (Moghaddam et al., 2024; Melo et al., 2021; Serhiyenka et al., 2019; Schimidt et al., 2020; Orhan et al., 2025; Alshraiedeh et al., 2023).
• Staphylococcus aureus is consistently prominent, sometimes the leading pathogen (Saranya et al., 2020; Lemos et al., 2024; Verway et al., 2022; Chandi et al., 2020; Waske et al., 2023).
• Streptococci (e.g., viridans group, S. pneumoniae, S. agalactiae, S. pyogenes) and enterococci are regularly recovered (Moghaddam et al., 2024; Serhiyenka et al., 2019; Orhan et al., 2025; Birhanu et al., 2025).
• Corynebacterium spp. appear at lower frequency (Serhiyenka et al., 2019; Darmofalska et al., 2023).

Gram-Negative Bacteria

Key Enterobacterales and non‑fermenters:

• Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae are among the most common Gram‑negative causes of BSI in many series and systematic reviews (Moghaddam et al., 2024; Melo et al., 2021; Saranya et al., 2020; Darmofalska et al., 2023; Lemos et al., 2024; Berger et al., 2025; Verway et al., 2022; Purohit et al., 2024; Chandi et al., 2020; Waske et al., 2023; Alshraiedeh et al., 2023; Birhanu et al., 2025).
• Other frequent Enterobacterales: Enterobacter cloacae/aerogenes, Serratia marcescens (Moghaddam et al., 2024; Melo et al., 2021; Darmofalska et al., 2023; Purohit et al., 2024; Waske et al., 2023; Birhanu et al., 2025).
• Non‑fermenters such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia appear regularly, sometimes at high prevalence in ICUs or oncology/neonatal settings (Moghaddam et al., 2024; Melo et al., 2021; Saranya et al., 2020; Darmofalska et al., 2023; Schimidt et al., 2020; Purohit et al., 2024; Orhan et al., 2025; Waske et al., 2023; Alshraiedeh et al., 2023; Birhanu et al., 2025).

Representative Organisms by Group

Group	Common Genera / Species	Citations
Gram-Positive	CoNS, Staphylococcus aureus, streptococci, enterococci, Corynebacterium	(Moghaddam et al., 2024; Melo et al., 2021; Serhiyenka et al., 2019; Darmofalska et al., 2023; Orhan et al., 2025; Alshraiedeh et al., 2023; Birhanu et al., 2025)
Gram-Negative	Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter spp., Serratia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, Stenotrophomonas	(Moghaddam et al., 2024; Melo et al., 2021; Saranya et al., 2020; Darmofalska et al., 2023; Schmidt et al., 2020; Purohit et al., 2024; Waske et al., 2023; Alshraiedeh et al., 2023; Birhanu et al., 2025)
Fungi / Yeasts	Candida spp. (C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis)	(Melo et al., 2021; Darmofalska et al., 2023; Schmidt et al., 2020; Ashmawy et al., 2025; Orhan et al., 2025)

Table 9: Main organism groups repeatedly isolated from blood

Fungi and Yeasts

• Candida species cause a minority but important share of positive cultures (often ~2–11% of positives) (Melo et al., 2021; Darmofalska et al., 2023; Schimidt et al., 2020; Ashmawy et al., 2025; Purohit et al., 2024; Orhan et al., 2025).
• Reported species include Candida albicans, C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis, and unspecified Candida spp. (Melo et al., 2021; Darmofalska et al., 2023; Schimidt et al., 2020; Ashmawy et al., 2025; Orhan et al., 2025).
• In specialized or high‑risk cohorts, other fungi and yeasts such as non‑albicans Candida, Trichosporon asahii, and Fusarium spp. are described (Berger et al., 2025).

Blood Culture Contamination

Blood culture contamination is frequent, costly, and often confusing. It mainly arises from skin flora entering bottles during collection and can be hard to distinguish from true bloodstream infection, especially for low‑virulence organisms.

Common Contaminants

Typical skin/mucosal flora often acting as contaminants include:

• Coagulase‑negative staphylococci (CoNS) – by far the most frequent contaminant in adults and children (Dargère et al., 2018; Karlath et al., 2025; Murni et al., 2018; Weinstein, 2003; Hossain et al., 2016; Bhosle et al., 2022; Vidanapathirana et al., 2024).
• Corynebacterium spp., Bacillus spp., Cutibacterium (Propionibacterium) spp., Micrococcus spp., viridans‑group streptococci, Aerococcus spp. – commonly treated as potential contaminant pathogens (PCPs) (Dargère et al., 2018; Karlath et al., 2025; Weinstein, 2003; Abu-Saleh et al., 2018; Hossain et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2007; Rizi et al., 2021; Hamada et al., 2025).
• Many of these can occasionally be true pathogens, especially in patients with prosthetic devices, intravascular catheters, or immunosuppression (Weinstein, 2003; Abu-Saleh et al., 2018; Hossain et al., 2016; Rasmussen et al., 2019; Rizi et al., 2021).

Typical “Contaminant” Organisms

Often Contaminants	Sometimes True Pathogens	Citations
CoNS, Bacillus, Corynebacterium, Cutibacterium, Micrococcus, diphtheroids	CoNS, viridans streptococci, Cutibacterium, Corynebacterium, Clostridium	(Dargère et al., 2018; Murni et al., 2018; Weinstein, 2003; Abu-Saleh et al., 2018; Boman et al., 2022; Hossain et al., 2016; Rasmussen et al., 2019; Rizi et al., 2021)

Table 11: Organisms frequently treated as blood culture contaminants

Causes of Contamination

• Skin flora not fully removed despite antisepsis; contamination rates of 1.8–>8% of all sets, and ≈20–40% of positives, are reported (Karlath et al., 2025; Weinstein, 2003; Souvenir et al., 1998; Vidanapathirana et al., 2024).
• Higher rates in busy areas such as emergency departments compared with ICUs/wards (Karlath et al., 2025; Vidanapathirana et al., 2024).
• Inadequate training, difficult sampling, and increased detection of low‑level skin flora by modern media and continuous‑monitoring instruments also contribute (Weinstein, 2003; Murni et al., 2018).

Differentiating Contaminants from True Pathogens

There is no single gold standard; decisions combine organism, culture pattern, and patient context (Dargère et al., 2018; Murni et al., 2018; Weinstein, 2003; Hossain et al., 2016).

Microbiological clues

Number of positive bottles/sets:

• Single‑set or single‑bottle growth of CoNS or other typical skin flora strongly predicts contamination; e.g., discordant CoNS in one of two bottles had ≈98% negative predictive value for true bacteremia (Ben-Chetrit et al., 2026; Abu-Saleh et al., 2018; Spaulding et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2007; Bhosle et al., 2022).
• Multiple positive cultures with the same organism favor true infection (Murni et al., 2018; Abu-Saleh et al., 2018; Spaulding et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2007; Rasmussen et al., 2019).

Organism‑specific patterns:

• Bacillus spp. were only contaminants in one 10‑year series (Abu-Saleh et al., 2018).
• Clostridium spp. and viridans streptococci were more often true bacteremia (Abu-Saleh et al., 2018).
• Cutibacterium and Corynebacterium may be true infections even with a single positive culture, especially with foreign material or endocarditis (Boman et al., 2022; Rasmussen et al., 2019).
• Time to positivity (TTP): True pathogens tend to have shorter TTP than contaminants (Murni et al., 2018; Spaulding et al., 2019; Osaki et al., 2020; Vidanapathirana et al., 2024).

Clinical factors

• Signs of infection (fever, chills, leukocytosis) and lack of another pathogen explaining illness support true bacteremia (Murni et al., 2018; Boman et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2007).
• Presence of central lines, prosthetic valves/devices, severe comorbidity or chronic conditions, ICU stay increases the chance that a “contaminant” organism is actually pathogenic (Abu-Saleh et al., 2018; Spaulding et al., 2019; Hamdan et al., 2024; Bhosle et al., 2022; Hamada et al., 2025).

Quality Control in Blood Culture Testing

Quality control in blood cultures focuses less on spiking controls and more on monitoring the entire process (pre‑analytic, analytic, post‑analytic) using meaningful indicators tied to patient outcomes.

Core Quality Indicators Across the Blood Culture Process

• Reviews and guidelines emphasize key performance indicators (KPIs) rather than classic QC materials, because realistic QC samples are hard to prepare for blood cultures (Lamy et al., 2018; Ombelet et al., 2019).
• Commonly recommended indicators include:
• Positivity rate (pathogen growth): often targeted around 5–15% in high‑income settings (Ombelet et al., 2019; Elvy et al., 2020; Elvy et al., 2023).
• Contamination rate, with goals <3% and best practice around 1% (Bunn & Cornish, 2025; Elvy et al., 2020; Elvy et al., 2023; Emeraud et al., 2020; Eigner & Samarasekara, 2024; Palavecino et al., 2023).
• Blood volume per bottle, as insufficient fill increases false negatives (Lamy et al., 2018; Elvy et al., 2023; Emeraud et al., 2020).
• Number of sets per episode (single vs multiple sets) (Elvy et al., 2020; Elvy et al., 2023).
• Turnaround times for registration, loading, positivity, Gram stain, and AST (Lamy et al., 2018; Elvy et al., 2023; Emeraud et al., 2020; Von Laer et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2024).
• False‑positive instrument signals and ecology of isolates (Lamy et al., 2018; Emeraud et al., 2020).

Pre‑Analytical Quality Control (Collection & Transport)

• Collection quality is central: inadequate volume and poor antisepsis cause false negatives and contamination, respectively (Bunn & Cornish, 2025; Ombelet et al., 2019).
• Contamination is monitored as a pre‑analytic quality indicator, often monthly and by site/ward, to target training and process changes (Bunn & Cornish, 2025; Emeraud et al., 2020; Eigner & Samarasekara, 2024; Yan et al., 2018).
• Interventions including standardized sterile technique, chlorhexidine pre‑disinfection, venipuncture kits, and structured feedback (PDCA or DMAIC cycles) significantly reduce contamination rates (Yan et al., 2018; Marcelino & Shepard, 2023).

Analytical and Instrument Performance

• ISO 15189‑aligned accreditation stresses method verification by risk analysis and performance evaluation using literature and manufacturer data rather than frequent bottle‑spiking controls (Lamy et al., 2018).
• Routine “spiked bottle” QC is criticized as unrealistic and redundant with manufacturer media testing (Lamy et al., 2018).
• For automated systems, monitoring includes time to detection, false‑positive signals, and system‑logged blood volumes (Lamy et al., 2018; Emeraud et al., 2020).
• In manual systems, simulated blood culture protocols using panels of reference organisms and defined bottle numbers are proposed to verify bottle quality (yield, time to positivity, usability) in low‑resource settings (Ombelet et al., 2022).

Post‑Analytical Quality and Result Verification

• Laboratories monitor Gram stain vs final ID concordance, often >95–97%, as a quality indicator (Emeraud et al., 2020).
• Large multicenter studies track turnaround time to AST report and compare different workflow models, showing that optimized workflows shorten time to actionable results (Von Laer et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2024; AlMutawa & Delport, 2025).
• Ongoing surveillance networks and annual audits benchmark positivity, contamination, volume, and set numbers across institutions, driving continuous improvement and standard setting (Elvy et al., 2020; Elvy et al., 2023; Brown & Badrick, 2022; Kiyosuke et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2025).

Recent Advances in Blood Culture Technology

Blood culture remains the gold standard for bloodstream infection, but major advances now focus on speed, automation, and integration rather than replacing culture itself (Lamy et al., 2019; Banerjee & Humphries, 2021; Tjandra et al., 2022).

Automation and Workflow Optimization

• Full laboratory automation (automated loading/unloading, automatic subculture, expert-system AST review, auto-reporting of negatives) shortened time from collection to final report from ~96 h to ~61 h, with large gains for gram-negatives, and led to shorter hospital stay and lower costs (Qin et al., 2025).
• Continuous‑monitoring instruments plus “microbiologistics” (better pre‑analytics, rapid transport, 24/7 mindset) define the new standard for BSI diagnostics (Lamy et al., 2019; Banerjee & Humphries, 2021).

Key Turnaround Time (TAT) Improvements

Technology / Approach	Main Gain in Time	Citations
Full Lab Automation (Virtuo + VPlus + Vitek 2)	Approximately 35 hours faster to final report compared with conventional workflows.	(Qin et al., 2025)
FAST System “Liquid Colony”	ID and AST results obtained approximately 1 day earlier.	(Ugaban et al., 2022; Sy et al., 2023)
Short Subculture + MALDI-TOF + Automated AST	Identification and AST completed approximately 20 hours earlier.	(Tsai et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2019)

Table 12: Examples of technologies shortening diagnostic timelines

Rapid Identification from Positive Blood Cultures

• MALDI‑TOF MS from positive bottles or short subculture is now routine, cutting ID time by ~24 h versus traditional biochemical systems (Banerjee & Humphries, 2021; Calderaro & Chezzi, 2024; Tsai et al., 2021).
• Direct MALDI‑TOF or short‑incubation protocols achieve ~84–97% correct species ID for Gram‑negatives and Gram‑positives (Bianco et al., 2022; Ugaban et al., 2022; Sy et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2019; Tsai et al., 2021; Tejan et al., 2025).
• Syndromic molecular panels (FilmArray BCID2, ePlex, Verigene) provide broad on‑panel pathogen and resistance gene detection within ~60–90 min, with ~99–100% sensitivity/specificity for targets (Oberhettinger et al., 2020; Tansarli & Chapin, 2022; Holma et al., 2021).

Rapid and Direct Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST)

• Rapid phenotypic AST directly from positive broth (e.g., Vitek 2, Phoenix, EUCAST/CLSI disk diffusion, FAST “liquid colony”) delivers reliable AST 1 day earlier, with categorical agreement typically ≥96–99% versus standard methods (Ugaban et al., 2022; Sy et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2019; Sastry et al., 2024; Tejan et al., 2025; Tsai et al., 2021).
• Reviews highlight a growing toolbox of rapid phenotypic and molecular AST systems, but emphasize that clinical impact (mortality, LOS) still needs stronger proof despite clear TAT gains (Jacobs et al., 2021; Di Pilato et al., 2025).

Next-Generation and Whole-Blood Approaches

• Whole‑genome sequencing directly from purified cells in positive cultures (LC‑WGS using Qvella FAST + Nanopore) can provide species ID in ~2.5 h and detailed resistance profiling in ~4–5 h with ~94–98% accuracy (Di Pilato et al., 2025).
• Emerging technologies aim to bypass culture by concentrating pathogens directly from whole blood, but none yet fully replace standard blood culture workflows (Banerjee & Humphries, 2021; Tjandra et al., 2022).

References

• (2025). Performance of Automated Versus Manual Blood Culture Systems in Detecting Bloodstream Infections; Systematic Review. Acta Scientific Medical Sciences. [https://doi.org/10.31080/asms.2025.09.2123](https://doi.org/10.31080/asms.2025.09.2123)
• Abu-Saleh, R., Nitzan, O., Saliba, W., Colodner, R., Keness, Y., Yanovskay, A., Edelstein, H., Schwartz, N., & Chazan, B. (2018). Bloodstream Infections Caused by Contaminants: Epidemiology and Risk Factors: A 10-Year Surveillance.. The Israel Medical Association journal : IMAJ, 20 7, 433-437.
• Adams, D., & Kaur, S. (2023). 127. Evaluation of Real-Time Verigene Blood Culture Alerts on Time to Optimal Antibiotic Therapy. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 10. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.200](https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.200)
• Ahn, K., Lee, T., Hwang, S., Seo, D., & Uh, Y. (2025). Comparative Performance Evaluation of Continuous Monitoring Blood Culture Systems Using Simulated Septic Specimen. Diagnostics, 15. [https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15040468](https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15040468)
• AlMutawa, F., & Delport, J. (2025). Evaluation of a four-day incubation protocol for blood cultures: a quality improvement project. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 44, 933 - 938. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-025-05054-3](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-025-05054-3)
• Alshraiedeh, N., Alzedan, M., Alsharedeh, R., Salameh, R., Masadeh, M., Atawneh, F., Alrafayah, E., & Zghoul, T. (2023). Identification and characterization of bacteria isolated from blood cultures at KAUH in Irbid, Jordan. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science. [https://doi.org/10.7324/japs.2023.98898](https://doi.org/10.7324/japs.2023.98898)
• Aronson, M., & Bor, D. (1987). Diagnostic Decision: Blood Cultures. Annals of Internal Medicine, 106, 246-253. [https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-106-2-246](https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-106-2-246)
• Ashmawy, M., Khairat, S., Reda, N., & Abdelhalim, M. (2025). Rapid and cost-effective identification of microorganisms from positive blood cultures using MALDI-TOF MS. BMC Infectious Diseases, 25. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-025-11129-5](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-025-11129-5)
• Aslam, M., Farooque, M., Malik, I., Khawaja, A., Yunus, N., & Mehmmod, A. (2024). Assessment of Adequate Blood Culture Incubation Time to Accentuate Clinically Relevant Results from Blood Culture Instrument and Media System in a Tertiary Care Hospital Lahore. Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research. [https://doi.org/10.61919/jhrr.v4i2.931](https://doi.org/10.61919/jhrr.v4i2.931)
• Attaway, C., Smith, J., & Rhoads, D. (2024). Another way? An investigation into an institution’s use of the Wayson stain in re-evaluating “no organisms seen” on Gram stain smears from positive blood cultures. Microbiology Spectrum, 13. [https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02573-24](https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02573-24)
• Banerjee, R., & Humphries, R. (2021). Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods for Blood Cultures and Their Clinical Impact. Frontiers in Medicine, 8. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.635831](https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.635831)
• Bard, D., Chang, T., Yee, R., Manshadi, K., Lichtenfeld, N., Choi, H., & Festekjian, A. (2020). The Addition of Anaerobic Blood Cultures for Pediatric Patients with Concerns for Bloodstream Infections: Prevalence and Time to Positive Cultures. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 58. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01844-19](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01844-19)
• Bard, J., & Tekippe, E. (2016). Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections in Children. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 54, 1418-1424. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02919-15](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02919-15)
• Ben-Chetrit, E., Helviz, Y., & Levin, P. (2026). Diagnostic value of blood culture growth patterns in distinguishing contaminants from pathogens. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 64. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01210-25](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01210-25)
• Berger, J., Pandya, D., Colson, J., Martinez, O., Anderson, A., & Camargo, J. (2025). "What am I?" microbiology of culture-positive, biofire® blood culture identification 2 panel-negative bloodstream infections.. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 112 4, 116846. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2025.116846](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2025.116846)
• Berninghausen, C., Schwab, F., Gropmann, A., Leidel, B., Somasundaram, R., Hottenbacher, L., Gastmeier, P., & Hansen, S. (2024). Deficits in blood culture collection in the emergency department if sepsis is suspected: results of a retrospective cohort study. Infection, 52, 1385 - 1396. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-024-02197-x](https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-024-02197-x)
• Bhosle, P., Thakar, V., & Modak, M. (2022). Coagulase Negative Staphylococcus Species Isolated from Blood Culture: A Pathogen or a Contaminant?. NATIONAL JOURNAL OF LABORATORY MEDICINE. [https://doi.org/10.7860/njlm/2022/55619.2671](https://doi.org/10.7860/njlm/2022/55619.2671)
• Bianco, G., Comini, S., Boattini, M., Ricciardelli, G., Guarrasi, L., Cavallo, R., & Costa, C. (2022). MALDI-TOF MS-Based Approaches for Direct Identification of Gram-Negative Bacteria and BlaKPC-Carrying Plasmid Detection from Blood Cultures: A Three-Year Single-Centre Study and Proposal of a Diagnostic Algorithm. Microorganisms, 11. [https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11010091](https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11010091)
• Birhanu, A., Gebre, G., Getaneh, E., Yohannes, H., Baye, N., Mersha, G., Tigabie, M., Dagnew, M., Ferede, G., Deress, T., & Abebe, W. (2025). Investigation of methicillin, beta lactam, carbapenem, and multidrug resistant bacteria from blood cultures of septicemia suspected patients in Northwest Ethiopia. Scientific Reports, 15. [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-86648-x](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-86648-x)
• Boakye-Yiadom, E., Najjemba, R., Thekkur, P., Labi, A., Gil-Cuesta, J., Asafo-Adjei, K., Mensah, P., Van Boetzelaer, E., Jessani, N., & Orish, V. (2023). Use and Quality of Blood Cultures for the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections: A Cross-Sectional Study in the Ho Teaching Hospital, Ghana, 2019–2021. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20. [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20176631](https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20176631)
• Boman, J., Nilson, B., Sunnerhagen, T., & Rasmussen, M. (2022). True infection or contamination in patients with positive Cutibacterium blood cultures—a retrospective cohort study. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 41, 1029 - 1037. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-022-04458-9](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-022-04458-9)
• Borges, J., Siqueira, L., Freitas, V., De Oliveira, V., Magri, A., Da Silva, A., Da Motta Pacheco Alves De Araújo, E., Cury, A., & Magri, M. (2025). Comparative performance of BD-BACTEC® Mycosis IC/F versus standard aerobic and anaerobic bottles in simulated fungemia and mixed bloodstream infections. Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, 67. [https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-9946202567064](https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-9946202567064)
• Bowens, I., & Beavers, C. (2025). A-187 Blood Culture Collection: An Effective Approach to Reduce Costs and Contamination Rates. Clinical Chemistry. [https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.181](https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.181)
• Brown, A., & Badrick, T. (2022). The next wave of innovation in laboratory automation: systems for auto-verification, quality control and specimen quality assurance. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 61, 37 - 43. [https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0409](https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0409)
• Buchan, B. (2022). Commentary: Can Automated Blood Culture Systems Be Both New and Improved?. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 60. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00192-22](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00192-22)
• Bunn, J., & Cornish, N. (2025). Blood Culture Contamination and Diagnostic Stewardship: From a Clinical Laboratory Quality Monitor to a National Patient Safety Measure.. The journal of applied laboratory medicine, 10 1, 162-170. [https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae132](https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae132)
• Butt, M., Lin, M., Wayman, J., Aboassi, S., & Elizabeth, P. (2025). eP11 Blood culture and sensitivity for surgical patients with suspected sepsis/bacteraemia. British Journal of Surgery. [https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf166.411](https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf166.411)
• Caldeira, D., David, C., & Sampaio, C. (2011). Skin antiseptics in venous puncture-site disinfection for prevention of blood culture contamination: systematic review with meta-analysis.. The Journal of hospital infection, 77 3, 223-32. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2010.10.015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2010.10.015)
• Calderaro, A., & Chezzi, C. (2024). MALDI-TOF MS: A Reliable Tool in the Real Life of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory. Microorganisms, 12. [https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12020322](https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12020322)
• Caulder, L., Beardsley, J., Palavecino, E., Van Dyke, E., Johnson, J., Ohl, C., Luther, V., & Williamson, J. (2018). 1799. Impact of Real-Time Electronic Notifications to Pharmacists of Rapid Diagnostic Blood Culture Results. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 5, S510 - S510. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1455](https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1455)
• Chandi, D., Patil, P., Damke, S., Basak, S., & Ashok, R. (2020). Bacteriologic Antibiography Outline of Isolates from Blood Culture at Tertiary Center. Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology. [https://doi.org/10.22207/jpam.14.4.55](https://doi.org/10.22207/jpam.14.4.55)
• Chandler, E., Wallace, K., Palavecino, E., Beardsley, J., Johnson, J., Luther, V., Ohl, C., & Williamson, J. (2022). A comparison of active versus passive methods of responding to rapid diagnostic blood culture results. Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology : ASHE, 2. [https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2022.26](https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2022.26)
• Cintrón, M., Clark, B., Miranda, E., & Babady, N. (2024). Utility of digital images captured after 4 h of incubation on a microbiology laboratory automation system in guiding the work-up of subcultures from positive blood cultures. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 63. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01320-24](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01320-24)
• Dargère, S., Cormier, H., & Verdon, R. (2018). Contaminants in blood cultures: importance, implications, interpretation and prevention.. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 24 9, 964-969. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2018.03.030](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2018.03.030)
• Darmofalska, K., Skowrońska, A., Woźniak, A., Pawelec, M., Skrzeczyńska, J., Ochman, E., & Magdziak, A. (2023). Etiological factors of bloodstream infections in oncological patients, who was hospitalized at the National Institute of Maria Skłodowska-Curie - National Research Institute in Warsaw in 2020-2022.. Przeglad epidemiologiczny, 77 3, 279-290. [https://doi.org/10.32394/pe.77.26](https://doi.org/10.32394/pe.77.26)
• De Socio, G., Di Donato, F., Paggi, R., Gabrielli, C., Belati, A., Rizza, G., Savoia, M., Repetto, A., Cenci, E., & Mencacci, A. (2018). Laboratory automation reduces time to report of positive blood cultures and improves management of patients with bloodstream infection. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 37, 2313 - 2322. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-018-3377-5](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-018-3377-5)
• Del Río, J., Izquierdo, R., Cárdenas, G., Estella, Á., García, D., & Julián-Jiménez, A. (2025). Adult patients in the emergency department with sepsis or suspected serious infection: Which patients should have blood cultures ordered?. Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias, 37 2, 131-140. [https://doi.org/10.55633/s3me/007.2025](https://doi.org/10.55633/s3me/007.2025)
• Di Pilato, V., Bonaiuto, C., Morecchiato, F., Antonelli, A., Giani, T., & Rossolini, G. (2025). Next-generation diagnostics of bloodstream infections enabled by rapid whole-genome sequencing of bacterial cells purified from blood cultures. eBioMedicine, 114. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105633](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105633)
• Dilnessa, T., Mengistu, G., & Bitew, A. (2016). Emerging Blood Culture Technologies for Isolation of Blood Pathogens at Clinical Microbiology Laboratories. Journal of Medical Microbiology and Diagnosis, 5, 1-7. [https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0703.1000227](https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0703.1000227)
• Egwuenu, A., Ejikeme, A., Tomczyk, S., Von Laer, A., Ayobami, O., Odebajo, O., Akhibi, S., Agulanna, C., Osagie, O., Inweregbu, U., Yahaya, R., Okwor, T., Dada-Adegbola, H., Ajayi, I., Olorukooba, A., Eckmanns, T., Ochu, C., & Ihekweazu, C. (2021). Baseline study for improving diagnostic stewardship at secondary health care facilities in Nigeria. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, 11. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-022-01080-4](https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-022-01080-4)
• Eigner, J., & Samarasekara, H. (2024). Blood culture contamination rate as a pre-analytical quality indicator: 12-month data analysis from a metropolitan microbiology laboratory. Pathology. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2023.12.397](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2023.12.397)
• Elvy, J., Haremza, E., Morris, A., Whiley, M., & Gay, S. (2023). Blood culture quality assurance: findings from a RCPAQAP Key Incidence Monitoring and Management Systems (KIMMS) audit of blood culture performance.. Pathology. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2023.03.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2023.03.012)
• Elvy, J., Walker, D., Haremza, E., Ryan, K., & Morris, A. (2020). Blood culture quality assurance: what Australasian laboratories are measuring and opportunities for improvement.. Pathology. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2020.09.020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2020.09.020)
• Emeraud, C., Yılmaz, S., Fortineau, N., Cuzon, G., & Dortet, L. (2020). Quality indicators for blood culture: 1 year of monitoring with BacT/Alert Virtuo at a French hospital. Journal of Medical Microbiology, 70. [https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001300](https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001300)
• Fabre, V., Carroll, K., & Cosgrove, S. (2021). Blood Culture Utilization in the Hospital Setting: a Call for Diagnostic Stewardship. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 60. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01005-21](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01005-21)
• Fabre, V., Jones, G., Hsu, Y., Carroll, K., & Cosgrove, S. (2022). To wait or not to wait: Optimal time interval between the first and second blood-culture sets to maximize blood-culture yield. Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology : ASHE, 2. [https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2022.27](https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2022.27)
• Fabre, V., Sharara, S., Salinas, A., Carroll, K., Desai, S., & Cosgrove, S. (2020). Does This Patient Need Blood Cultures? A Scoping Review of Indications for Blood Cultures in Adult Non-Neutropenic Inpatients.. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. [https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa039](https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa039)
• Fiori, B., D'Inzeo, T., Di Florio, V., De Maio, F., De Angelis, G., Giaquinto, A., Campana, L., Tanzarella, E., Tumbarello, M., Antonelli, M., Sanguinetti, M., & Spanu, T. (2014). Performance of Two Resin-Containing Blood Culture Media in Detection of Bloodstream Infections and in Direct Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) Broth Assays for Isolate Identification: Clinical Comparison of the BacT/Alert Plus and Bactec Plus. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 52, 3558 - 3567. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01171-14](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01171-14)
• Freling, S., Richie, I., Norwitz, D., Canamar, C., Banerjee, J., Davar, K., Clark, D., & Spellberg, B. (2025). Interpreting Blood Culture Results as Early Guidance for Infective Endocarditis. JAMA Network Open, 8. [https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.8079](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.8079)
• Garcia, R., Spitzer, E., Beaudry, J., Beck, C., Diblasi, R., Gilleeny-Blabac, M., Haugaard, C., Heuschneider, S., Kranz, B., McLean, K., Morales, K., Owens, S., Paciella, M., & Torregrosa, E. (2015). Multidisciplinary team review of best practices for collection and handling of blood cultures to determine effective interventions for increasing the yield of true-positive bacteremias, reducing contamination, and eliminating false-positive central line-associated bloodstream infections.. American journal of infection control, 43 11, 1222-37. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.06.030](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.06.030)
• Gottschalk, A., Coggins, S., Dhudasia, M., Flannery, D., Healy, T., Puopolo, K., Gerber, J., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2024). Utility of Anaerobic Blood Cultures in Neonatal Sepsis Evaluation.. Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. [https://doi.org/10.1093/jpids/piae056](https://doi.org/10.1093/jpids/piae056)
• Halperin, A., Del Castillo Polo, J., Cortés-Cuevas, J., Isasi, M., Morisaki, M., Birch, R., Díaz, A., & Cantón, R. (2022). Impact of Automated Blood Culture Systems on the Management of Bloodstream Infections: Results from a Crossover Diagnostic Clinical Trial. Microbiology Spectrum, 10. [https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01436-22](https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01436-22)
• Hamada, H., Morioka, H., Iguchi, M., Oka, K., Kanda, K., Yagi, T., Okazaki, M., & Hashizume, A. (2025). P-409. Reevaluation of Contamination Rates: Discrepancies Between Clinical and Laboratory Assessment. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 12. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofae631.610](https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofae631.610)
• Hamdan, A., Andujar-Vazquez, G., Campion, M., Poonawala, H., Cebulla, C., & Alsoubani, M. (2024). Evaluating the Clinical Impact of Species-Level Identification in Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Positive Blood Cultures. Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology : ASHE, 4, s47 - s48. [https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.162](https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.162)
• Hardy, L., Vermoesen, T., Genbrugge, E., Natale, A., Franquesa, C., Gleeson, B., Ferreyra, C., Dailey, P., & Jacobs, J. (2024). Affordable blood culture systems from China: in vitro evaluation for use in resource-limited settings. eBioMedicine, 101. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105004)
• Henning, C., Aygül, N., Dinnétz, P., Wallgren, K., & Özenci, V. (2019). Detailed Analysis of the Characteristics of Sample Volume in Blood Culture Bottles. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 57. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00268-19](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00268-19)
• Holland, R., Cooper, B., Helgeson, N., & Mccracken, A. (1980). Automated detection of microbial growth in blood cultures by using stainless-steel electrodes. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 12, 180 - 184. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.12.2.180-184.1980](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.12.2.180-184.1980)
• Holma, T., Torvikoski, J., Friberg, N., Nevalainen, A., Tarkka, E., Antikainen, J., & Martelin, J. (2021). Rapid molecular detection of pathogenic microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance markers in blood cultures: evaluation and utility of the next-generation FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 panel. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 41, 363 - 371. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04314-2](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04314-2)
• Hossain, B., Islam, M., Rahman, A., Marzan, M., Rafiqullah, I., Connor, N., Hasanuzzaman, M., Islam, M., Hamer, D., Hibberd, P., & Saha, S. (2016). Understanding Bacterial Isolates in Blood Culture and Approaches Used to Define Bacteria as Contaminants: A Literature Review. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 35, S45–S51. [https://doi.org/10.1097/inf.0000000000001106](https://doi.org/10.1097/inf.0000000000001106)
• Huber, S., Hetzer, B., Crazzolara, R., & Orth-Höller, D. (2020). The correct blood volume for pediatric blood cultures: a conundrum?. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.10.006](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.10.006)
• Hyman, J., Walsh, J., Ronsick, C., Wilson, M., Hazen, K., Borzhemskaya, L., Link, J., Clay, B., Ullery, M., Sanchez-Illan, M., Rothenberg, S., Robinson, R., Van Belkum, A., & Dunne, W. (2016). Evaluation of a Fully Automated Research Prototype for the Immediate Identification of Microorganisms from Positive Blood Cultures under Clinical Conditions. mBio, 7. [https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00491-16](https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00491-16)
• Isaacman, D., Karasic, R., Reynolds, E., & Kost, S. (1996). Effect of number of blood cultures and volume of blood on detection of bacteremia in children.. The Journal of pediatrics, 128 2, 190-5. [https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3476(96)70388-8](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3476(96)70388-8)
• Iyer, V., Castro, D., Malla, B., Panda, B., Rabson, A., Horowitz, G., Heger, N., Gupta, K., Singer, A., & Norwitz, E. (2024). Culture-independent identification of bloodstream infections from whole blood: prospective evaluation in specimens of known infection status. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 62. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01498-23](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01498-23)
• Jacobs, M., Colson, J., & Rhoads, D. (2021). Recent advances in rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing systems. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, 21, 563 - 578. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2021.1924679](https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2021.1924679)
• Jacobs, M., Mazzulli, T., Hazen, K., Good, C., Abdelhamed, A., Lo, P., Shum, B., Roman, K., & Robinson, D. (2017). Multicenter Clinical Evaluation of BacT/Alert Virtuo Blood Culture System. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 55, 2413 - 2421. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00307-17](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00307-17)
• Julander, I., Kalin, M., & Sjöberg, L. (1983). Detection time for blood culture isolates using a biphasic medium. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2, 54-55. [https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02019926](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02019926)
• Kargaltseva, N., Kocherovets, V., Mironov, A., & Borisova, O. (2020). [Brain-heart media for blood cultures.]. Klinicheskaia laboratornaia diagnostika, 65 6, 375-381. [https://doi.org/10.18821/0869-2084-2020-65-6-375-381](https://doi.org/10.18821/0869-2084-2020-65-6-375-381)
• Karlath, F., Rehan, M., Geigor, A., Mitchell, M., Arnaout, S., Greenough, T., & Ellison, R. (2025). Retrospective Analysis of the Clinical Significance of Positive Blood Cultures in the Emergency Department: A Single-Center Study. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 12. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaf352](https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaf352)
• Khizar, S., Rizvi, A., Jawad, S., Shah, H., & Ali, F. (2020). Comparison between Manual Blood Culture and Automated Blood Culture System in Cardiology Institute. Medical Journal Of South Punjab. [https://doi.org/10.61581/mjsp.vol01/02/03](https://doi.org/10.61581/mjsp.vol01/02/03)
• Kirn, T., & Weinstein, M. (2013). Update on blood cultures: how to obtain, process, report, and interpret.. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 19 6, 513-20. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12180](https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12180)
• Kirn, T., Mirrett, S., Reller, L., & Weinstein, M. (2013). Controlled Clinical Comparison of BacT/Alert FA Plus and FN Plus Blood Culture Media with BacT/Alert FA and FN Blood Culture Media. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 52, 839 - 843. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.03063-13](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.03063-13)
• Kiyosuke, M., Morishita, S., Nakaie, K., Kondo, S., Sonobe, K., Goto, M., Ohashi, K., & Kashiyama, S. (2023). Verification of quality assurance for blood culture surveillance using 6 years of data from the Japan Infection Prevention and Control Conference for National and Public University Hospitals.. Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2023.02.014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2023.02.014)
• Kok, W. (2024). Is It Useful to Repeat Blood Cultures in Endocarditis Patients? A Critical Appraisal. Diagnostics, 14. [https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141578](https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141578)
• Koroki, T., Fujii, M., Kotani, Y., Yaguchi, T., Shibata, T., Hirata, C., Okawa, N., Ota, K., Tonai, M., Karumai, T., Kataoka, Y., & Hayashi, Y. (2025). Contamination of blood cultures drawn from arterial catheters versus venipuncture or venous catheters in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. [https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaf260](https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaf260)
• Kp, A., Mohapatra, S., Gautam, H., Nityadarshini, N., Das, B., & Yadav, V. (2022). The Gram stain: Implication in blood culture reporting. Tropical Doctor, 53, 256 - 259. [https://doi.org/10.1177/00494755221143270](https://doi.org/10.1177/00494755221143270)
• Lafaurie, M., D’anglejan, E., Donay, J., Glotz, D., Sarfati, É., Mimoun, M., Legrand, M., Oksenhendler, É., Bagot, M., Valade, S., Berçot, B., & Molina, J. (2020). Utility of anaerobic bottles for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections. BMC Infectious Diseases, 20. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-4854-x](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-4854-x)
• Lamy, B., Dargère, S., Arendrup, M., Parienti, J., & Tattevin, P. (2016). How to Optimize the Use of Blood Cultures for the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections? A State-of-the Art. Frontiers in Microbiology, 7. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00697](https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00697)
• Lamy, B., Ferroni, A., Henning, C., Cattoen, C., & Laudat, P. (2018). How to: accreditation of blood cultures' proceedings. A clinical microbiology approach for adding value to patient care.. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 24 9, 956-963. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2018.01.011](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2018.01.011)
• Lamy, B., Sundqvist, M., & Idelevich, E. (2019). Bloodstream infections - Standard and progress in pathogen diagnostics.. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.11.017](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.11.017)
• Lee, A., Mirrett, S., Reller, L., & Weinstein, M. (2006). Detection of Bloodstream Infections in Adults: How Many Blood Cultures Are Needed?. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 45, 3546 - 3548. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01555-07](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01555-07)
• Lee, C., Lin, W., Shih, H., Wu, C., Chen, P., Lee, H., Lee, N., Chang, C., Wang, L., & Ko, W. (2007). Clinical significance of potential contaminants in blood cultures among patients in a medical center.. Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi, 40 5, 438-44.
• LekshmiRajan, L., Jayalekha, B., SreekumaryP., K., & Harikumar, S. (2017). A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON CONVENTIONAL AND AUTOMATED BLOOD CULTURE IN THE EARLY DETECTION OF BACTERIAL PATHOGENS. Journal of Evolution of medical and Dental Sciences, 6, 2502-2506. [https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2017/542](https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2017/542)
• Lemos, M., Zafred, I., Silva, L., Aliança, A., Firmo, W., & Nunes, M. (2024). Positive Blood Culture Profile Through Systematic Review. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental. [https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n10ed.esp-018](https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n10ed.esp-018)
• Lin, P., Chang, C., Chung, Y., Chang, C., & Chu, F. (2022). Revisiting factors associated with blood culture positivity: Critical factors after the introduction of automated continuous monitoring blood culture systems. Medicine, 101. [https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000029693](https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000029693)
• Ling, C., Roberts, T., Soeng, S., Cusack, T., Dance, D., Lee, S., Reed, T., Hinfonthong, P., Sihalath, S., Sengduangphachanh, A., Watthanaworawit, W., Wangrangsimakul, T., Newton, P., Nosten, F., Turner, P., & Ashley, E. (2021). Impact of delays to incubation and storage temperature on blood culture results: a multi-centre study. BMC Infectious Diseases, 21. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-05872-8](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-05872-8)
• Linsenmeyer, K., Gupta, K., Strymish, J., Dhanani, M., Brecher, S., & Breu, A. (2016). Culture if spikes? Indications and yield of blood cultures in hospitalized medical patients.. Journal of hospital medicine, 11 5, 336-40. [https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2541](https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2541)
• Liu, W., Duan, Y., & Chen, M. (2017). Author's response to 'Are skin antiseptics for blood culture collection really equal? Commentary on Liu, W., et al., 2016 "Skin antiseptics in venous puncture site disinfection for preventing blood culture contamination: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials"'.. International journal of nursing studies, 75, 81-82. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.07.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.07.012)
• Liu, W., Liao, K., Wu, J., Liu, S., Zheng, X., Wen, W., Fu, L., Fan, X., Yang, X., Hu, X., Jiang, Y., Wu, K., Guo, Z., Li, Y., Liu, W., Cai, M., Guo, Z., Guo, X., Lu, J., Chen, E., Zhou, H., & Chen, D. (2024). Blood culture quality and turnaround time of clinical microbiology laboratories in Chinese Teaching Hospitals: A multicenter study. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 38. [https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.25008](https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.25008)
• Long, B., & Koyfman, A. (2016). Best Clinical Practice: Blood Culture Utility in the Emergency Department.. The Journal of emergency medicine, 51 5, 529-539. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.07.003](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.07.003)
• Marchel, H., & Wróblewska, M. (2021). Bloodstream infections – etiology and current microbiological diagnostics. Polish Annals of Medicine. [https://doi.org/10.29089/2021.21.00193](https://doi.org/10.29089/2021.21.00193)
• Marcelino, C., & Shepard, J. (2023). A Quality Improvement Initiative on Reducing Blood Culture Contamination in the Emergency Department.. Journal of emergency nursing, 49 2, 162-171. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2022.11.005](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2022.11.005)
• Martinez, R., Bauerle, E., Fang, F., & Butler-Wu, S. (2014). Evaluation of Three Rapid Diagnostic Methods for Direct Identification of Microorganisms in Positive Blood Cultures. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 52, 2521 - 2529. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00529-14](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00529-14)
• Meda, M., Clayton, J., Varghese, R., Rangaiah, J., Grundy, C., Dashti, F., Garner, D., Groves, K., Fitzmaurice, K., & Hutley, E. (2016). What are the critical steps in processing blood cultures? A prospective audit evaluating current practice of reporting blood cultures in a centralised laboratory serving secondary care hospitals. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 70, 361 - 366. [https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2016-204091](https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2016-204091)
• Melo, M., Neto, A., Maranhão, T., Costa, E., Nascimento, C., Cavalcanti, M., Ferreira-Júnior, G., Rocha, M., Silva, K., Júnior, C., & Rocha, T. (2021). Microbiological characteristics of bloodstream infections in a reference hospital in northeastern Brazil.. Brazilian journal of biology = Revista brasleira de biologia, 84, e253065. [https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.253065](https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.253065)
• Menchinelli, G., Liotti, F., Fiori, B., De Angelis, G., D'Inzeo, T., Giordano, L., Posteraro, B., Sabbatucci, M., Sanguinetti, M., & Spanu, T. (2019). In vitro Evaluation of BACT/ALERT® VIRTUO®, BACT/ALERT 3D®, and BACTEC™ FX Automated Blood Culture Systems for Detection of Microbial Pathogens Using Simulated Human Blood Samples. Frontiers in Microbiology, 10. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00221](https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00221)
• Mitchell, K., Couch, H., Henderson, S., & Chen, D. (2018). 2326. Necessity of Anaerobic Blood Cultures for Identification of Pediatric Bloodstream Infections. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 5, S691 - S691. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1979](https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1979)
• Mitchell, K., Crozier, A., Burnham, C., & Yarbrough, M. (2019). Processing of Positive Blood Cultures Using a Total Laboratory Automation System: Workflow and Clinical Validation. American Journal of Clinical Pathology. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqz112.060](https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqz112.060)
• Moghaddam, S., Mamishi, S., Pourakbari, B., & Mahmoudi, S. (2024). Bacterial etiology and antimicrobial resistance pattern of pediatric bloodstream infections: a 5-year experience in an Iranian referral hospital. BMC Infectious Diseases, 24. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-024-09260-w](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-024-09260-w)
• Murni, I., Duke, T., Daley, A., Kinney, S., & Soenarto, Y. (2018). True Pathogen or Contamination: Validation of Blood Cultures for the Diagnosis of Nosocomial Infections in a Developing Country. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, 64, 389–394. [https://doi.org/10.1093/tropej/fmx081](https://doi.org/10.1093/tropej/fmx081)
• Nakayama, I., Izawa, J., Gibo, P., Murakami, S., Akiyama, T., Kotani, Y., Katsurai, R., Kishihara, Y., Tsuchida, T., Takakura, S., Takayama, Y., Narita, M., & Shiiki, S. (2023). Contamination of blood cultures from arterial catheters and peripheral venipuncture in critically ill patients: A prospective multicenter diagnostic study.. Chest. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2023.01.030](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2023.01.030)
• Nath, S., Choudhury, B., & Borbora, S. (2023). A Comparative Study of Conventional and Automated Blood Culture System in Adult Patients. International Journal of Research and Review. [https://doi.org/10.52403/ijrr.20230278](https://doi.org/10.52403/ijrr.20230278)
• Nd, W. (1975). Blood cultures: principles and techniques.. Mayo Clinic proceedings, 50 2, 91-8.
• Noh, G., Park, Y., Kim, S., Song, S., & Shin, J. (2023). Clinical usefulness of anaerobic blood culture in pediatric patients with bacteremia.. Anaerobe, 102804. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2023.102804](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2023.102804)
• O’Hagan, S., Nelson, P., Speirs, L., Moriarty, P., & Mallett, P. (2021). How to interpret a paediatric blood culture. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 106, 244 - 250. [https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-321121](https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-321121)
• Oberhettinger, P., Zieger, J., Autenrieth, I., Marschal, M., & Peter, S. (2020). Evaluation of two rapid molecular test systems to establish an algorithm for fast identification of bacterial pathogens from positive blood cultures. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 39, 1147 - 1157. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-020-03828-5](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-020-03828-5)
• Öksüz, Ş., Dönmez, B., Keskin, B., Memis, N., Karamurat, Z., Çalışkan, E., Öztürk, C., & Sahin, I. (2021). Evaluatıon of Qualıty Assurance Indıcators and Contamınatıon Rate in Blood Culture. Konuralp Tıp Dergisi. [https://doi.org/10.18521/ktd.858764](https://doi.org/10.18521/ktd.858764)
• Olga, B., Olga, S., Irina, B., Maria, B., Olga, C., Aurelia, B., & Greta, B. (2019). The importance of blood cultures in the effective management of bloodstream infections. , 62.
• Ombelet, S., Barbé, B., Affolabi, D., Ronat, J., Lompo, P., Lunguya, O., Jacobs, J., & Hardy, L. (2019). Best Practices of Blood Cultures in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Frontiers in Medicine, 6. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00131](https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00131)
• Ombelet, S., Natale, A., Ronat, J., Kesteman, T., Vandenberg, O., Jacobs, J., & Hardy, L. (2021). Biphasic versus monophasic manual blood culture bottles for low-resource settings: an in-vitro study.. The Lancet. Microbe, 3 2, e124-e132. [https://doi.org/10.1016/s2666-5247(21)00241-x](https://doi.org/10.1016/s2666-5247(21)00241-x)
• Ombelet, S., Natale, A., Ronat, J., Vandenberg, O., Jacobs, J., & Hardy, L. (2022). Considerations in evaluating equipment-free blood culture bottles: A short protocol for use in low-resource settings. PLoS ONE, 17. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267491](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267491)
• Ombelet, S., Peeters, M., Phe, C., Tsoumanis, A., Kham, C., Teav, S., Vlieghe, E., Phe, T., & Jacobs, J. (2020). Nonautomated Blood Cultures in a Low-Resource Setting: Optimizing the Timing of Blind Subculture. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 104, 612 - 621. [https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.20-0249](https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.20-0249)
• Opota, O., Croxatto, A., Prod'Hom, G., & Greub, G. (2015). Blood culture-based diagnosis of bacteraemia: state of the art.. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 21 4, 313-22. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2015.01.003](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2015.01.003)
• Orhan, Z., Kayış, A., Kirişci, Ö., Küçük, B., Altun, M., & Aral, M. (2025). Bacteria isolated from blood cultures in a neonatal and pediatric intensive care unit and their antibiotic resistance: 5-year results. Trends in Pediatrics. [https://doi.org/10.59213/tp.2025.218](https://doi.org/10.59213/tp.2025.218)
• Osaki, S., Kikuchi, K., Moritoki, Y., Motegi, C., Ohyatsu, S., Nariyama, T., Matsumoto, K., Tsunashima, H., Kikuyama, T., Kubota, J., Nagumo, K., Fujioka, H., Kato, R., & Murakawa, Y. (2020). Distinguishing coagulase-negative Staphylococcus bacteremia from contamination using blood-culture positive bottle detection pattern and time to positivity.. Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2020.02.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2020.02.004)
• Ota, K. (2023). Contamination of Blood Cultures From Indwelling Arterial Catheters in Critically Ill Patients: Alternative Blood Culture Sampling?. Chest, 164 1, 11-12. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2023.02.030](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2023.02.030)
• Palavecino, E., Campodónico, V., & She, R. (2023). Laboratory approaches to determining blood culture contamination rates: an ASM Laboratory Practices Subcommittee report. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 62. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01028-23](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01028-23)
• Patel, P., & Rivera, C. (2023). 591. Positivity of Blood Culture on Automated Incubation System After 72 Hours and Clinical Significance from the Large United States Tertiary Care Center. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 10. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.660](https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.660)
• Peker, N., Couto, N., Sinha, B., & Rossen, J. (2018). Diagnosis of bloodstream infections from positive blood cultures and directly from blood samples: recent developments in molecular approaches.. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 24 9, 944-955. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2018.05.007](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2018.05.007)
• Peri, A., Harris, P., & Paterson, D. (2021). Culture independent detection systems for bloodstream infection.. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2021.09.039](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2021.09.039)
• Pohlman, J., Kirkley, B., Easley, K., Basille, B., & Washington, J. (1995). Controlled clinical evaluation of BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F and BacT/Alert Aerobic FAN bottles for detection of bloodstream infections. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 33, 2856 - 2858. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.33.11.2856-2858.1995](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.33.11.2856-2858.1995)
• Purohit, S., Kaur, P., Lamba, M., Jangid, Y., Sharma, C., & Rajni, E. (2024). Etiological profile and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of blood culture isolates for bloodstream infection. Journal of Laboratory Physicians. [https://doi.org/10.25259/jlp_94_2024](https://doi.org/10.25259/jlp_94_2024)
• Qin, J., Zhang, H., Zhang, X., Wang, L., Yu, Y., Li, M., & Shen, Z. (2025). Optimizing blood culture diagnostics through laboratory automation: reducing turnaround time and improving clinical outcomes. Microbiology Spectrum, 13. [https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01927-25](https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01927-25)
• Qin, Y., Liao, Y., Zhou, J., Liu, W., Chen, H., Chen, X., Wang, W., Zhang, N., Zhao, Y., Wang, L., Gu, B., & Liu, S. (2024). Comparative evaluation of BacT/ALERT VIRTUO and BACTEC FX400 blood culture systems for the detection of bloodstream infections. Microbiology Spectrum, 13. [https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01850-24](https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01850-24)
• Ransom, E., & Burnham, C. (2022). Routine Use of Anaerobic Blood Culture Bottles for Specimens Collected from Adults and Children Enhances Microorganism Recovery and Improves Time to Positivity. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 60. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00500-22](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00500-22)
• Ransom, E., Alipour, Z., Wallace, M., & Burnham, C. (2020). Evaluation of Optimal Blood Culture Incubation Time To Maximize Clinically Relevant Results from a Contemporary Blood Culture Instrument and Media System. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 59. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02459-20](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02459-20)
• Rasmussen, M., Mohlin, A., & Nilson, B. (2019). From contamination to infective endocarditis—a population-based retrospective study of Corynebacterium isolated from blood cultures. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 39, 113 - 119. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-019-03698-6](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-019-03698-6)
• Ravindranath, T., & Baird, J. (2020). Obtaining Blood Cultures in Critically Ill Children: The Need for a Cultural Change.. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine. [https://doi.org/10.1097/pcc.0000000000002178](https://doi.org/10.1097/pcc.0000000000002178)
• Rizi, K., Farsiani, H., & Ghalibaf, M. (2021). Blood culture positive for gram-positive rods: Contamination or a true infection-A literature review. Reviews in Clinical Medicine. [https://doi.org/10.22038/rcm.2021.58032.1369](https://doi.org/10.22038/rcm.2021.58032.1369)
• Saranya, D., Pavani, S., & Lakshmi, J. (2020). Bacteriological Profile and Antibiogram of Blood Cultures from a Teritiary Care Hospital – Hyderabad. Scholars Journal of Applied Medical Sciences. [https://doi.org/10.36347/sjams.2020.v08i02.062](https://doi.org/10.36347/sjams.2020.v08i02.062)
• Sastry, A., Kumaresan, M., Dhandapani, S., Padhy, S., & Priyadarshi, K. (2024). Assessing the effectiveness of direct susceptibility testing from positive blood culture broth using the VITEK-2 system. IP International Journal of Medical Microbiology and Tropical Diseases. [https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijmmtd.2024.043](https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijmmtd.2024.043)
• Scheer, C., Fuchs, C., Gründling, M., Vollmer, M., Bast, J., Bohnert, J., Zimmermann, K., Hahnenkamp, K., Rehberg, S., & Kuhn, S. (2019). Impact of antibiotic administration on blood culture positivity at the beginning of sepsis: a prospective clinical cohort study.. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 25 3, 326-331. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2018.05.016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2018.05.016)
• Schimidt, D., Condé, M., De Almeida Silva, N., & Póvoa, H. (2020). Bacterial Distribution and Susceptibility in Bloodstream Infection in Primary-Care Hospital in Nova Friburgo, Rio de Janeiro. **. [https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-81799/v1](https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-81799/v1)
• Serhiyenka, K., Romanova, O., & Lazarev, A. (2019). P397 Microbiology of gram-positive bloodstream infections in children in minsk. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 104, A315 - A315. [https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2019-epa.743](https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2019-epa.743)
• Shapiro, N., Wolfe, R., Wright, S., Moore, R., & Bates, D. (2008). Who needs a blood culture? A prospectively derived and validated prediction rule.. The Journal of emergency medicine, 35 3, 255-64. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2008.04.001](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2008.04.001)
• Snyder, M., Lawrence, A., Reese, J., Wald, D., Anderson, N., & Ransom, E. (2025). 38 Validation of an Automated Blood Culture Detection System for Sterility Testing of Cellular and Gene Therapy Products. American Journal of Clinical Pathology. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqaf121.465](https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqaf121.465)
• Snyder, S., Favoretto, A., Baetz, R., Derzon, J., Madison, B., Mass, D., Shaw, C., Layfield, C., Christenson, R., & Liebow, E. (2012). Effectiveness of practices to reduce blood culture contamination: a Laboratory Medicine Best Practices systematic review and meta-analysis.. Clinical biochemistry, 45 13-14, 999-1011. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.06.007](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.06.007)
• Soedarmono, P., Diana, A., Tauran, P., Lokida, D., Aman, A., Alisjahbana, B., Arlinda, D., Tjitra, E., Kosasih, H., Merati, K., Arif, M., Gasem, M., Susanto, N., Lukman, N., Sugiyono, R., Hadi, U., Lisdawati, V., Tchos, K., Neal, A., & Karyana, M. (2022). The characteristics of bacteremia among patients with acute febrile illness requiring hospitalization in Indonesia. PLoS ONE, 17. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273414](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273414)
• Søgaard, M., Nørgaard, M., & Schønheyder, H. (2007). First Notification of Positive Blood Cultures and the High Accuracy of the Gram Stain Report. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 45, 1113 - 1117. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02523-06](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02523-06)
• Souvenir, D., Anderson, D., Palpant, S., Mroch, H., Askin, S., Anderson, J., Claridge, J., Eiland, J., Malone, C., Garrison, M., Watson, P., & Campbell, D. (1998). Blood Cultures Positive for Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci: Antisepsis, Pseudobacteremia, and Therapy of Patients. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 36, 1923 - 1926. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.36.7.1923-1926.1998](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.36.7.1923-1926.1998)
• Spaulding, A., Watson, D., Dreyfus, J., Heaton, P., & Kharbanda, A. (2019). 2172. True Positivity of Common Blood Culture Contaminants among Pediatric Hospitalizations in the United States, 2009–2016. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 6, S737 - S737. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1852](https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1852)
• Sy, I., Bühler, N., Becker, S., & Jung, P. (2023). Evaluation of the Qvella FAST System and the FAST-PBC cartridge for rapid species identification and antimicrobial resistance testing directly from positive blood cultures. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 61. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00569-23](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00569-23)
• Tansarli, G., & Chapin, K. (2022). A Closer Look at the Laboratory Impact of Utilizing ePlex Blood Culture Identification Panels: a Workflow Analysis Using Rapid Molecular Detection for Positive Blood Cultures. Microbiology Spectrum, 10. [https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01796-22](https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01796-22)
• Tejan, N., Fatima, N., Yaduvanshi, N., Singh, R., Pathak, A., Hasan, I., Patel, S., & Sahu, C. (2025). Evaluation of direct microbial identification by MALDI-TOF MS and antimicrobial susceptibility testing for early diagnosis of blood stream infections. BMC Microbiology, 25. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-025-04401-w](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-025-04401-w)
• Temkin, E., Biran, D., Braun, T., Schwartz, D., & Carmeli, Y. (2022). Analysis of Blood Culture Collection and Laboratory Processing Practices in Israel. JAMA Network Open, 5. [https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.38309](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.38309)
• Thomas, J., Wasira, A., Maarafu, D., Igogo, F., Emmanuel, E., Ernest, R., Mushi, M., & Mshana, S. (2025). Effect of the incubation time on blood culture results and bacterial pathogens causing bloodstream infections among children attending Sekou Toure Regional Referral Hospital in Mwanza, Tanzania. Access Microbiology, 7. [https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.000942.v3](https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.000942.v3)
• Tierney, B., Henry, N., & Washington, J. (1983). Early detection of positive blood cultures by the acridine orange staining technique. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 18, 830 - 833. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.18.4.830-833.1983](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.18.4.830-833.1983)
• Timsit, J., Ruppé, E., Barbier, F., Tabah, A., & Bassetti, M. (2020). Bloodstream infections in critically ill patients: an expert statement. Intensive Care Medicine, 46, 266 - 284. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-05950-6](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-05950-6)
• Tjandra, K., Ram-Mohan, N., Abe, R., Hashemi, M., Lee, J., Chin, S., Roshardt, M., Liao, J., Wong, P., & Yang, S. (2022). Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections: An Evolution of Technologies towards Accurate and Rapid Identification and Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing. Antibiotics, 11. [https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11040511](https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11040511)
• Towns, M., Jarvis, W., & Hsueh, P. (2010). Guidelines on blood cultures.. Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi, 43 4, 347-9. [https://doi.org/10.1016/s1684-1182(10)60054-0](https://doi.org/10.1016/s1684-1182(10)60054-0)
• Tran, P., Dowell, E., Hamilton, S., Dolan, S., Messacar, K., Dominguez, S., & Todd, J. (2020). Two Blood Cultures With Age-Appropriate Volume Enhance Suspected Sepsis Decision-Making. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 7. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa028](https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa028)
• Tsai, Y., Lin, T., Chou, H., Hung, H., Tan, C., Wu, L., Feng, I., & Shiue, Y. (2021). Shortening the Time of the Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing on Positive Blood Cultures with MALDI-TOF MS. Diagnostics, 11. [https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11081514](https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11081514)
• Turan, D., Kuruoğlu, T., Gümüş, D., Kalayci, F., & Şerefhanoğlu, K. (2018). Evaluation of Factors that may Cause False Positive Growth Signals in Blood Cultures-As the Word 'Factors' will Include Both Microbial and Patients as well as Others. International Journal of Clinical & Medical Microbiology. [https://doi.org/10.15344/2456-4028/2018/137](https://doi.org/10.15344/2456-4028/2018/137)
• Ugaban, K., Pak, P., & She, R. (2022). Direct MALDI-TOF MS and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Positive Blood Cultures Using the FASTTM System and FAST-PBC Prep Cartridges—Performance Evaluation in a Clinical Microbiology Laboratory Serving High-Risk Patients. Microorganisms, 10. [https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10102076](https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10102076)
• Verway, M., Brown, K., Marchand-Austin, A., Diong, C., Lee, S., Langford, B., Schwartz, K., Macfadden, D., Patel, S., Sander, B., Johnstone, J., Garber, G., & Daneman, N. (2022). Prevalence and Mortality Associated with Bloodstream Organisms: a Population-Wide Retrospective Cohort Study. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 60. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02429-21](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02429-21)
• Vidanapathirana, P., Rathnayake, M., Piyasiri, D., & Wickramasinghe, S. (2024). Comparison of blood culture contamination and true positivity between Emergency treatment unit, Intensive care units and General wards in a Tertiary care centre in Southern Sri Lanka: A cross-sectional study. Ruhuna Journal of Medicine. [https://doi.org/10.4038/rjm.v12i2.7](https://doi.org/10.4038/rjm.v12i2.7)
• Von Laer, A., N’Guessan, M., Touré, F., Nowak, K., Groeschner, K., Ignatius, R., Friesen, J., Tomczyk, S., Leendertz, F., Eckmanns, T., & Akoua-Koffi, C. (2021). Implementation of Automated Blood Culture With Quality Assurance in a Resource-Limited Setting. Frontiers in Medicine, 8. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.627513](https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.627513)
• Walsh, J., Hyman, J., Borzhemskaya, L., Bowen, A., McKellar, C., Ullery, M., Mathias, E., Ronsick, C., Link, J., Wilson, M., Clay, B., Robinson, R., Thorpe, T., Van Belkum, A., & Dunne, W. (2013). Rapid Intrinsic Fluorescence Method for Direct Identification of Pathogens in Blood Cultures. mBio, 4. [https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00865-13](https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00865-13)
• Waske, S., Singh, P., Mathy, S., & Maroyhi, Y. (2023). Microbiological Profile and Antimicrobial Resistant Pattern among Isolates from Bloodstream Infection in a Tertiary Care Hospital. Central India Journal of Medical Research. [https://doi.org/10.58999/cijmr.v1i03.27](https://doi.org/10.58999/cijmr.v1i03.27)
• Weinstein, M. (2003). Blood Culture Contamination: Persisting Problems and Partial Progress. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 41, 2275 - 2278. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.41.6.2275-2278.2003](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.41.6.2275-2278.2003)
• Weinstein, M., & Doern, G. (2011). A Critical Appraisal of the Role of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory in the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 49, S26 - S29. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00765-11](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00765-11)
• Whelan, S., Mulrooney, C., Moriarty, F., & Cormican, M. (2024). Pediatric blood cultures—turning up the volume: a before and after intervention study. European Journal of Pediatrics, 183, 3063 - 3071. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-024-05544-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-024-05544-0)
• Wu, H., Liu, W., Peng, Y., Qu, L., Lin, L., Mo, B., Cao, X., Zhou, H., & Chen, D. (2025). Quality indicators and turnaround time for blood culture in pediatric patients: 1 year of monitoring in 19 Chinese hospitals. BMC Pediatrics, 25. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-025-06279-z](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-025-06279-z)
• Wu, S., Xu, J., Qiu, C., Xu, L., Chen, Q., & Wang, X. (2019). Direct antimicrobial susceptibility tests of bacteria and yeasts from positive blood cultures by using serum separator gel tubes and MALDI-TOF MS.. Journal of microbiological methods, 157, 16-20. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2018.12.011](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2018.12.011)
• Yan, Y., Yang, H., Zhao, J., & Xia, R. (2018). A Quality Control Circle Process to Reduce Blood Culture Contamination Rates. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 40, 119 - 120. [https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.271](https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.271)
• Yang, X., Fan, Y., Xu, X., Shen, T., An, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., Pan, H., & Chang, D. (2025). Direct Testing of Blood Samples to Diagnose Bloodstream Infections.. ACS infectious diseases. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acsinfecdis.5c00109](https://doi.org/10.1021/acsinfecdis.5c00109)
• Ye, H., Su, F., Cui, X., Guo, X., Zhu, T., Kong, D., & Miao, X. (2023). Evaluation of Different Blood Culture Bottles for the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections in Patients with HIV. Infectious Diseases and Therapy, 12, 2611 - 2620. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-023-00883-1](https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-023-00883-1)
• Ziegler, R., Johnscher, I., Martus, P., Lenhardt, D., & Just, H. (1998). Controlled Clinical Laboratory Comparison of Two Supplemented Aerobic and Anaerobic Media Used in Automated Blood Culture Systems To Detect Bloodstream Infections. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 36, 657 - 661. [https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.36.3.657-661.1998](https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.36.3.657-661.1998)