ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2002
Comparative assessment of genotyping methods for epidemiologic study of Burkholderia cepacia genomovar III.
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 44 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
44 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pathogens without borders: a review on cross-kingdom transmission strategies and pathogenicity of plant and human pathogens.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods forJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Identification ofArchives of Razi Institute · 2023Article
- An outbreak ofInfection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023Article
- Article
- The Class A β-Lactamase Produced byAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- An intermittent outbreak ofJournal of infection prevention · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods for Burkholderia cenocepacia and Burkholderia multivorans Isolates from Cystic Fibrosis Patients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Resurrecting Old β-Lactams: Potent Inhibitory Activity of Temocillin against Multidrug-ResistantAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Article
- Evaluation of BOX-PCR and ERIC-PCR as Molecular Typing Tools for PathogenicDisease markers · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
- Review
- Clinafloxacin for Treatment of Burkholderia cenocepacia Infection in a Cystic Fibrosis Patient.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2016Article
- Use of 16S rRNA gene for identification of a broad range of clinically relevant bacterial pathogens.PloS one · 2015Article
- Niche differentiation in nitrogen metabolism among methanotrophs within an operational taxonomic unit.BMC microbiology · 2014Article
- Clonally related Burkholderia contaminans among ventilated patients without cystic fibrosis.American journal of infection control · 2013Article
- Genetic diversity of Burkholderia contaminans isolates from cystic fibrosis patients in Argentina.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
- A multilocus sequence typing scheme implies population structure and reveals several putative novel Achromobacter species.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
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 analyzed a collection of 97 well-characterized Burkholderia cepacia genomovar III isolates to evaluate multiple genomic typing systems, including pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), BOX-PCR fingerprinting and random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) typing. The typeability, reproducibility, and discriminatory power of these techniques were evaluated, and the results were compared to each other and to data obtained in previous studies by using multilocus restriction typing (MLRT). All methods showed excellent typeability. PFGE with SpeI was more reproducible than RAPD and BOX-PCR fingerprinting. The discriminatory power of the methods was variable, with PFGE and RAPD typing having a higher index of discrimination than BOX-PCR fingerprinting. In general, the results obtained by PFGE, BOX-PCR fingerprinting, and MLRT were in good agreement. Our data indicate that different genomic-based methods can be used to type B. cepacia genomovar III isolates depending on the situation and the epidemiologic question being addressed. PFGE and RAPD fingerprinting are best suited to addressing small-scale studies (i.e., local epidemiology), whereas BOX-PCR fingerprinting is more appropriate for large-scale studies (i.e., global epidemiology). In this regard, BOX-PCR fingerprinting can be considered a rapid and easy alternative to MLRT.
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.