Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Research Article

Clinical laboratory comparison of a slide blood culture system with a conventional broth system.

M A Pfaller, T K Sibley, L M Westfall, J E Hoppe-Bauer, M A Keating, P R Murray
M A Pfaller
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
T K Sibley
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L M Westfall
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J E Hoppe-Bauer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M A Keating
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P R Murray
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The recovery of bacteria and fungi from blood cultures was compared in conventional tryptic soy broth (TSB) bottles and in TSB bottles with an agarcoated slide attachment. A total of 2,662 sets of blood cultures, including 413 that were positive (15.5%), were evaluated. Significantly more gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria were recovered in the slide culture bottles than in conventional bottles (299 versus 253 isolates). Growth of gram-positive organisms and fungi was detected in the slide culture bottles 24 to 48 h earlier than in the TSB bottles. In addition, 76% of the isolates in the slide culture system were detected on the agar slide. In comparison, only 40% of the isolates in the TSB bottles were detected initially by blind subculturing. The incidences of contamination were 2.7% (71 cultures) for the slide culture system and 1.5% (39 cultures) for the TSB bottles.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Clinical laboratory comparison of a slide blood culture system with a conventional broth system.
M A Pfaller, T K Sibley, L M Westfall, J E Hoppe-Bauer, M A Keating, P R Murray
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Sep 1982, 16 (3) 525-530; DOI:

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinical laboratory comparison of a slide blood culture system with a conventional broth system.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Clinical laboratory comparison of a slide blood culture system with a conventional broth system.
M A Pfaller, T K Sibley, L M Westfall, J E Hoppe-Bauer, M A Keating, P R Murray
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Sep 1982, 16 (3) 525-530; DOI:
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X