ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2001
Direct identification of Mycobacterium avium complex and Mycobacterium gordonae from MB/BacT bottles using AccuProbe.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2001. 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.
- Understanding nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease: it's been a long time coming.F1000Research · 2016Review
- Interpretive criteria for use of AccuProbe for identification of Mycobacterium avium complex directly from 7H9 broth cultures.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2005Article
- Efficient method for mycobacterial DNA extraction in blood cultures aids rapid PCR identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium avium.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2004Article
- Novel mass spectrometry-based tool for genotypic identification of mycobacteria.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the ability of the AccuProbe (Gen-Probe, San Diego, Calif.) to detect Mycobacterium gordonae and Mycobacterium avium complex directly in liquid medium flagged positive by the MB/BacT (Organon Teknika Corp., Durham, N.C.). Seventy-one bottles from clinical specimens containing M. gordonae and 34 containing M. avium, confirmed by culture, were tested by direct AccuProbe assay for both organisms after additional incubation for > or = 48 h and centrifugation at 4,500 x g for 15 min. Relative light unit (RLU) values were analyzed using the manufacturer's recommended cutoff of 30,000 RLU and a lower cutoff of 10,000 RLU. Using the 30,000 RLU cutoff, 55 of 71 (77.5%) specimens containing M. gordonae yielded positive results, whereas 28 of 34 (82.3%) M. avium complex specimens were correctly identified by direct probe. No specimens shown by culture to contain either M. gordonae or M. avium complex tested positive with the probe for the opposite organism (100% specificity). When the cutoff was lowered to 10,000 RLU, 67 of 71 M. gordonae (94.4%) and 32 of 34 M. avium complex (94.1%) specimens were correctly identified. This difference was significant for M. gordonae (P = 0.004) but not for M. avium complex (P = 0.26) compared to detection using the recommended RLU cutoff. Specificity was 100% for specimens containing M. gordonae that were tested with the M. avium complex probe using the 10,000 RLU cutoff, whereas specificity for specimens containing M. avium complex tested with the M. gordonae probe was 97%. Using a lower RLU cutoff for determining a positive result using the M. gordonae or M. avium complex probes when testing instrument-positive MB/BacT bottles directly will improve sensitivity without substantially compromising specificity.
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.