Performance of Automated Versus Manual Blood Culture Systems in Detecting Bloodstream Infections; Systematic Review

Background: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, which require accurate diagnosis for effective management.Blood culture is the gold standard for detecting BSIs, and the choice between automated and manual systems is a challenge, mainly in resource-limited settings.In this systematic review we aim to compare the diagnostic performance of automated versus manual blood culture systems in detecting bloodstream infections, focusing on yield, time to detection, and clinical impact.Methods: Our review identified relevant studies which compare automated and manual blood culture systems.The review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Data were extracted and synthesized from 5 studies.Outcomes assessed included detection rate, contamination rate, time to detection (TTD), and pathogen identification efficiency.Results: Automated systems show higher detection rates, shorter TTD, and improved pathogen identification.These systems improved clinical decision making and supported antimicrobial management through faster organism recovery.Manual systems is widely used in low and middle income countries due to cost and infrastructure limitations. Conclusion:Automated blood culture systems better manual methods in most diagnostic metrics, but implementation in low resource settings need strategies to address the barriers.