Mapping the Evidence on Rapid Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections: A Scoping Review

Author:

Rubinstein Matthew L1,Wolk Donna M2,Babady N. Esther3,Johnson J. Kristie4,Atkinson Bridgette5,Makim Roshni5,Parrott J. Scott6

Affiliation:

1. Department of Clinical Laboratory and Medical Imaging Sciences, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA

2. Molecular and Microbial Diagnostics and Development, Geisinger Medical Laboratories, Diagnostic Medicine Institute, Danville, PA, USA

3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Microbiology Services, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

4. Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

5. Department of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, School of Health Professions, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA

6. Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Health Professions, School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, NJ, USA

Abstract

Abstract Background Laboratory and other healthcare professionals participate in developing clinical practice guidelines through systematic review of the evidence. A significant challenge is the identification of areas for analytic focus when the evidence consists of several categories of interventions and outcomes that span both laboratory and clinical processes. The challenge increases when these interventions present as sets of combined interventions. A scoping review may provide a transparent and defensible analytic route forward for systematic reviews challenged in this manner. Content A scoping review was carried out to characterize the evidence on rapid identification of bloodstream infections. Fifty-five studies previously identified by the supported systematic review were charted in duplicate. Charted records were analyzed using descriptive content analysis and evidence mapping with a 5-step process. Summary The 5-step analysis culminated in the characterization of 9 different intervention chain configurations that will facilitate the comparison of complex intervention practices across studies. Furthermore, our evidence map indicates that the current evidence base is strongly centered on 3 specific clinical outcomes, and it links these outcomes to the most represented intervention chain configurations. The scoping review effort generated a route forward for the supported systematic review and meta-analysis.

Funder

The American Society for Microbiology provided remuneration

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3