ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2003
Optimisation of acid fast smears for the direct detection of mycobacteria in clinical samples.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Re-Identification of Previously Unidentifiable Clinical Non-Tuberculous Mycobacterial Isolates Shows Great Species Diversity and the Presence of Other Acid-Fast Genera.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- An evaluation study on phenotypical methods and real-time PCR for detection ofIranian journal of microbiology · 2017Article
- Cardiac implantable electronic device infection due to Mycobacterium species: a case report and review of the literature.BMC research notes · 2016Review
- PCR to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis in respiratory tract samples: evaluation of clinical data.Epidemiology and infection · 2014Article
- Tuberculosis diagnosis and multidrug resistance testing by direct sputum culture in selective broth without decontamination or centrifugation.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2008Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsDespite its long history, the acid fast smear remains unstandardised. Technical variations in both the preparation of clinical material and subsequent staining mean that smear sensitivity relative to culture may vary from 50% to over 80%. This study assessed the sensitivity of acid fast microscopy at each of five stages of sample preparation and by both commonly used staining methods.
methodsSputum samples thought for varying reasons to be highly likely to be culture positive were used to prepare a series of smears in which the effects of digestion (liquefaction), concentration (centrifugation), and decontamination (sodium hydroxide) could be assessed, together with a comparison of staining by the auramine/phenol and Ziehl-Neelsen techniques.
resultsThe most effective method for the demonstration of acid fast organisms in sputum was found to be an auramine phenol stain applied to a liquefied, concentrated sample and examined before the decontamination process.
conclusionsThe auramine phenol stain applied to a liquefied, concentrated sample and examined before the decontamination process is the most effective method for the demonstration of acid fast organisms in sputum.
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.