Talk:Blood culture

Blood culture has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 12, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Blood culture.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Spam

An anonymous user from the 129.31 range insists on leaving an external link to http://www.biomerieux-usa.com - the site of a manufacturer. I really don't see the point in adding a link to one manufacturer. If we are to learn details about the composition of the medium or the material of the bottles, why can't we provide this content in more general terms (generalisable to all other manufacturers) and integrate this with the article's content?

I'm also getting annoyed with the provocative edit summaries by this user ("who do you think you are"). I have now semiprotected the page, and hope that we can have a somewhat more reasonable discussion. JFW | T@lk 08:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - inappropriate spam linkage. Site is commercial for that company and the link was to the company's homepage rather than any subpage giving specific information about this one topic (the topic being "blood culture", not one manufacturer's products). External links should be to provide greater information than that which would be appropriate were the article to be at featured article level. Wikipedia is not a directory listing service (go use Google etc), and whilst the company if a notably leader or innovative in its niche (notable of course not as the company itself would claim, but opinion cited from reliable third party sources) may or may not warrrent its own article, but adding in link to a general analytical manufacturer to this article is inappropriate. Further, to repeatedly reinsert the link is spamming. In general, I would suggest adding content and improving wikipedia's articles rather than merely add commercial external links.David Ruben ^Talk 00:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many blood cultures

How many sets of blood cultures? This page is not complete or well-referenced yet. Perhaps one standard is 2 sets of blood cultures, aerobic and anaerobic, for a total of 4 culture bottles, before antibiotic therapy in a typical suspected pneumonia or case of sepsis. There are over 50,000 citations in MEDLINE on blood cultures. Using different search techniques, terms, searching reviews, and so on I have still not found the papers that are exactly on the number of blood cultures recommended in different clinical settings. Anyone happen to know the right citations? ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 19:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of article

To everyone,

Please help to improve this article. I really do not have the time, and it looks really awful.
Suggestions for improvement:

More history, including diagnostics
Clearify procedure, very unsatisfying at the moment. Current procedure tells more about a vena punction, not the procedure for diagnosing sepsis or whatsoever.
Info about the bottles cq. material, aerobic (green) and anaerobic (red).
Diagnostics of nowadays (Bact-Alert®, measurement of CO₂ in blood to determine the presence bacteria)
Pathology of sepsis, not to much -> link to main article of sepsis
Professionalise writing style
Wikify whole article

Sorry I couldn't do it, but I hope my suggestions are helpful!
Dr. F.C. Turner - [USERPAGE|USERTALK] - 21:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure/method secion

I replaced the current procedure section ([1]) with an older version ([2]) that seemed much better-written. As the comment above points out, the version that I replaced was focused on venipuncture at the expense of the overall blood culture procedure. Hanacy (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blood culture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Graham Beards (talk · contribs) 19:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article easily meets the Good Article criteria. It describes a technique used in hospital laboratories that I have used for many years. No major facts have been omitted and the citations are WP:MEDRS compliant. Graham Beards (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]