Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11230430›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2001

Performance assessment of new multiplex probe assay for identification of mycobacteria.

E Tortoli, A Nanetti, C Piersimoni, P Cichero, C Farina, G Mucignat, C Scarparo, L Bartolini, R Valentini, D Nista and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Biochip-Based Identification of Mycobacterial Species in Russia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Microorganisms · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Rapid Identification of Clinically RelevantJournal of clinical microbiology · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Mycobacterium marinum.Microbiology spectrum · 2017
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Rapidly Growing Mycobacteria.Microbiology spectrum · 2017
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

E TortoliCentro Regionale di Riferimento per la Diagnostica delle Micobatteriosi, Laboratorio di Microbiologia e Virologia, Ospedale di Careggi, Piastra del servizi, viale Morgagni 85, 50134 Florence, Italy. tortoli@dada.it
A Nanetti
C Piersimoni
P Cichero
C Farina
G Mucignat
C Scarparo
L Bartolini
R Valentini
D Nista
G Gesu
C P Tosi
M Crovatto
G Brusarosco
Azienda Ospedaliera Santa Maria Degli Angeli · ITAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti · ITIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele · ITOspedale San Bortolo · ITOspedali Riuniti Umberto I · ITUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A new DNA probe assay (INNO LiPA Mycobacteria; Innogenetics, Ghent, Belgium) for the simultaneous identification, by means of reverse hybridization and line-probe technology, of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex, Mycobacterium kansasii, Mycobacterium xenopi, Mycobacterium gordonae, the species of the Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), Mycobacterium scrofulaceum, and Mycobacterium chelonae was evaluated on a panel of 238 strains including, besides representatives of all the taxa identifiable by the system, a number of other mycobacteria, some of which are known to be problematic with the only other commercial DNA probe system (AccuProbe; Gen-Probe, San Diego, Calif.), and two nocardiae. The new kit, which includes a control probe reacting with the whole genus Mycobacterium, correctly identified 99.6% of the strains tested; the one discrepancy, which remained unresolved, concerned an isolate identified as MAC intermediate by INNO LiPA Mycobacteria and as Mycobacterium intracellulare by AccuProbe. In five cases, because of an imperfect checking of hybridization temperature, a very slight, nonspecific, line was visible which was no longer evident when the test was repeated. Two strains whose DNA failed amplification at the first attempt were regularly identified when the test was repeated. Interestingly, the novel kit dodged all the pitfalls presented by the strains giving anomalous reactions with AccuProbe. A unique feature of INNO LiPA Mycobacteria is its ability to recognize different subgroups within the species M. kansasii and M. chelonae, while the declared overlapping reactivity of probe 4 with some M. kansasii and Mycobacterium gastri organisms and of probe 9 with MAC, Mycobacterium haemophilum, and Mycobacterium malmoense, may furnish a useful aid for their identification. The turnaround time of the method is approximately 6 h, including a preliminary PCR amplification.

Indexed as

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticAnimalsDNA, BacterialDNA ProbesHumansMycobacteriumNucleic Acid HybridizationPolymerase Chain ReactionSpecies SpecificityDNA, BacterialDNA ProbesReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID11230430
PMCPMC87876
OpenAlexW2104550086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.