Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11923341›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2002

Comparison of DNA hybridization and PCR assays for detection of putative pathogenic enteroadherent Escherichia coli.

Isabel C A Scaletsky, Sandra H Fabbricotti, Katia R Aranda, Mauro B Morais, Ulysses Fagundes-Neto

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Adherence and virulence genes of Escherichia coli from children diarrhoea in the Brazilian Amazon.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2015
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

5 authors.

Isabel C A ScaletskyDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Parasitology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, São Paulo, SP, Brazil CEP 04023-062. scaletsky@ecb.epm.br
Sandra H Fabbricotti
Katia R Aranda
Mauro B Morais
Ulysses Fagundes-Neto

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The correlation of the different adherence patterns with DNA probes and PCR primers for the identification of Escherichia coli was analyzed in isolates from children, less than 2 years of age with or without diarrhea, from different regions of Brazil. A total of 1,428 isolates obtained from 338 patients and 322 control children were studied. The enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC) adherence factor (EAF) probe was shown to be as good as the HEp-2 adhesion assay for the detection of typical EPEC strains. The DNA probes used to detect diffusely adhering E. coli and enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC) showed low sensitivities (64 and 50%, respectively), and the best method of identifying these organisms in clinical research remains the HEp-2 adherence assay. The "bundle-forming pilus" (BFP) and the EAEC PCR assays could be used instead of the DNA probes as a screening method for typical EPEC and EAEC carrying the EAEC probe sequence in the clinical laboratory. In our study, only typical EPEC strains that carried EAF and BFP were associated with acute diarrhea.

Indexed as

Bacterial AdhesionCell LineDiarrheaDNA ProbesEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsHumansInfantInfant, NewbornNucleic Acid HybridizationPolymerase Chain ReactionDNA Probes

Identifiers

PMID11923341
PMCPMC140355

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.