ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1999
Molecular epidemiological investigation using a randomly amplified polymorphic DNA assay of Burkholderia cepacia isolates from nosocomial outbreaks.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficient management and maintenance of ultrasonic nebulizers to prevent microbial contamination.World journal of methodology · 2016Article
- Species distribution and antimicrobial susceptibility of gram-negative aerobic bacteria in hospitalized cancer patients.Journal of translational medicine · 2009Article
- Comparative assessment of genotyping methods for epidemiologic study of Burkholderia cepacia genomovar III.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2002Article
- Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA analysis of Erysipelothrix spp.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We experienced two Burkholderia cepacia outbreaks over a 1-year period. During this period, 28 B. cepacia isolates were obtained from clinical specimens, and 2 were obtained from environmental specimens (i.e., from a nebulizer solution and a nebulizer tube). These 30 isolates were subjected to the PCR-based randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) assay as well as to pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). In the first outbreak, in which eight patients hospitalized in the Trauma and Critical Care Center were involved, the RAPD assay revealed that all 20 isolates obtained from clinical specimens and the 2 isolates from environmental specimens had identical DNA profiles. These RAPD data enabled us to pinpoint a possible source and to take countermeasures to prevent further spread of the epidemic-causing strain. In the second outbreak, two consecutive B. cepacia infection/colonization cases were seen in the surgery ward. The RAPD profiles of four isolates obtained were again identical, but they were distinct from those seen in the first outbreak, clearly indicating that the second outbreak was not related to the first. Thus, our experience demonstrated that the RAPD assay is a useful and reliable tool for epidemiological studies of B. cepacia isolates from nosocomial outbreaks. Since the RAPD assay could provide discriminatory potential and reproducibility comparable to those of the widely used PFGE assay with less complexity and in a shorter time, the introduction of the RAPD assay into hospital microbiology laboratories as a routine technique may help prevent nosocomial outbreaks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.