Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Conflict of Interest
    • Informed Consent
    • Human and Animal Rights
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
  • ascls.org
    • ascls.org

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
  • ascls.org
    • ascls.org
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Conflict of Interest
    • Informed Consent
    • Human and Animal Rights
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
  • Follow ASCLS on Twitter
  • Visit ASCLS on Facebook
  • Follow ASCLS on Instagram
  • RSS Feed
Research ArticleResearch and Reports

Implementation of Dual Incubation Strategies to Improve Anaerobic Culture Yield in the Clinical Laboratory

Chiamaka T. Umah, Ashleigh Riegler, Mishi Bhushan, Danielle Scarborough-Carr, Elizabeth King, Jamie Hutchinson and Megan H. Amerson-Brown
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science August 2026, DOI: https://doi.org/10.29074/ascls.2026003355
Chiamaka T. Umah
University of Alabama at Birmingham
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ashleigh Riegler
University of Alabama at Birmingham
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mishi Bhushan
Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Danielle Scarborough-Carr
Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham Health Service Foundation
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth King
Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham Health Service Foundation
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jamie Hutchinson
Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham Health Service Foundation
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Megan H. Amerson-Brown
Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mamersonbrown{at}uabmc.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Old vs new process. A visual representation of the process used in this study. The left side of the diagram shows the old process, whereas right side shows the new process implemented in late 2022.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Old vs new process. A visual representation of the process used in this study. The left side of the diagram shows the old process, whereas right side shows the new process implemented in late 2022.

  • Improvement in percent positivity. The bar chart shows the percent positivity of total cultures in 2022 and 2023. Using a Fisher exact text, the percentage of positive cultures in 2023 was significantly higher than the percentage of positive cultures in 2022. ***P = .0010.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Improvement in percent positivity. The bar chart shows the percent positivity of total cultures in 2022 and 2023. Using a Fisher exact text, the percentage of positive cultures in 2023 was significantly higher than the percentage of positive cultures in 2022. ***P = .0010.

  • Comparison of facultative and obligate anaerobe percent recovery. Obligate anaerobes (gray bar) and facultative anaerobes (black bar) percentage recovery in 2022 and 2023 study periods are shown. (A) First cultures analysis. (B) Repeat cultures analysis. The repeat cultures analysis is consistent with the results of the first cultures analysis, showing an increase in anerobic organism recovery in 2023, more significantly in the obligate anaerobic organism recovery.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Comparison of facultative and obligate anaerobe percent recovery. Obligate anaerobes (gray bar) and facultative anaerobes (black bar) percentage recovery in 2022 and 2023 study periods are shown. (A) First cultures analysis. (B) Repeat cultures analysis. The repeat cultures analysis is consistent with the results of the first cultures analysis, showing an increase in anerobic organism recovery in 2023, more significantly in the obligate anaerobic organism recovery.

  • Control charts indicating a higher average and variance owing to process change. Data were plotted for a 7-day timeframe of the datasets used during our study periods. The data indicate an increase in (A) the average of the total number of positive cultures, (B) variance in total positive cultures, (C) average strict anaerobes recovered, and (D) variance of the total strict organisms recovered. All graphs show an increase in the CL from 2022 to 2023 and a widening of the range in the UCL and LCL between 2022 and 2023 data. CL, control limit; LCL, lower CL; UCL, upper CL.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Control charts indicating a higher average and variance owing to process change. Data were plotted for a 7-day timeframe of the datasets used during our study periods. The data indicate an increase in (A) the average of the total number of positive cultures, (B) variance in total positive cultures, (C) average strict anaerobes recovered, and (D) variance of the total strict organisms recovered. All graphs show an increase in the CL from 2022 to 2023 and a widening of the range in the UCL and LCL between 2022 and 2023 data. CL, control limit; LCL, lower CL; UCL, upper CL.

  • Heatmap showing a number of organisms identified in the study period with improved recovery in obligate anaerobes, especially in the Clostridium spp, Bacteroides spp, Prevotella spp, Fusobacterium spp, and Bilophila spp. Red indicates a highly recovered organism, whereas purple indicates a lower, not recovered organism.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Heatmap showing a number of organisms identified in the study period with improved recovery in obligate anaerobes, especially in the Clostridium spp, Bacteroides spp, Prevotella spp, Fusobacterium spp, and Bilophila spp. Red indicates a highly recovered organism, whereas purple indicates a lower, not recovered organism.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Differences in organism recovery

    2022 Mean (SD)2023 Mean (SD)Mean Difference, %P Value
    Total organisms0.25 (0.62)0.44 (0.88)55.07<0.0001
    Total aerobes0.01 (0.14)0.02 (0.098)66.670.0344
    Total facultative anaerobes0.071 (0.29)0.129 (0.39)58<0.0001
    Total obligate anaerobes0.16 (0.51)0.30 (0.76)60.87<0.0001

    These data show the difference in recovery of organisms in anaerobic cultures between the 2022 and 2023 datasets. The culture differences were statistically evaluated using a Mann–Whitney U test, with all categories showing significant P values less than .05.

      • View popup
      Table 2.

      Difference in organism recovery among first cultures from patients

      2022 Mean (SD)2023 Mean (SD)Mean Difference, %P Value
      Total organisms1.25 (0.57)1.45 (0.78)14.810.0009
      Total aerobes0.32 (0.52)0.30 (0.52)−6.450.4754
      Total facultative anaerobes0.21 (0.46)0.24 (0.47)13.330.3865
      Total obligate anaerobes0.92 (0.69)1.15 (0.89)22.220.004

      These data show the analysis of the first culture results per anatomical site per patient using a Mann–Whitney U test. Obligate anaerobic organisms and total organisms were significantly improved in recovery from 2022 to 2023 (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the recovery of aerobic or facultative anaerobic organisms.

      PreviousNext
      Back to top

      In this issue

      American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science: 38 (1)
      American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
      Vol. 38, Issue 1
      1 Jan 2025
      • Table of Contents
      • Index by author
      Print
      Download PDF
      Article Alerts
      Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
      Email Article

      Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science.

      NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

      Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
      Implementation of Dual Incubation Strategies to Improve Anaerobic Culture Yield in the Clinical Laboratory
      (Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
      (Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science web site.
      CAPTCHA
      This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
      Citation Tools
      Implementation of Dual Incubation Strategies to Improve Anaerobic Culture Yield in the Clinical Laboratory
      Chiamaka T. Umah, Ashleigh Riegler, Mishi Bhushan, Danielle Scarborough-Carr, Elizabeth King, Jamie Hutchinson, Megan H. Amerson-Brown
      American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science Aug 2026, DOI: 10.29074/ascls.2026003355

      Citation Manager Formats

      • BibTeX
      • Bookends
      • EasyBib
      • EndNote (tagged)
      • EndNote 8 (xml)
      • Medlars
      • Mendeley
      • Papers
      • RefWorks Tagged
      • Ref Manager
      • RIS
      • Zotero
      Request Permissions
      Share
      Implementation of Dual Incubation Strategies to Improve Anaerobic Culture Yield in the Clinical Laboratory
      Chiamaka T. Umah, Ashleigh Riegler, Mishi Bhushan, Danielle Scarborough-Carr, Elizabeth King, Jamie Hutchinson, Megan H. Amerson-Brown
      American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science Aug 2026, DOI: 10.29074/ascls.2026003355
      Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
      • Tweet Widget
      • Facebook Like
      • Google Plus One

      Jump to section

      • Article
        • ABSTRACT
        • INTRODUCTION
        • MATERIALS AND METHODS
        • RESULTS
        • DISCUSSION
        • LIMITATIONS
        • CONCLUSION
        • REFERENCES
      • Figures & Data
      • Info & Metrics
      • PDF

      Related Articles

      • No related articles found.
      • Google Scholar

      Cited By...

      • No citing articles found.
      • Google Scholar

      More in this TOC Section

      • Diagnostic Challenges in Amyloid Light-Chain Amyloidosis
      • Associations of Admission Grade Point Average and Postclinical Competency Assessment With American Society for Clinical Pathology Board of Certification Outcomes
      Show more Research and Reports

      Similar Articles

      Keywords

      • CL - control limit
      • LCL - lower CL
      • MALDI-TOF - matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight
      • QI - quality improvement
      • UABHCM - University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital Clinical Microbiology Laboratory
      • UCL - upper CL
      • anaerobiosis
      • culture techniques
      • specimen handling
      • workflow
      • quality improvement
      • clinical microbiology

      © 2026 The American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science

      Powered by HighWire