ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2007
Comparison of three methods for rapid identification of mycobacterial clinical isolates to the species level.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An alert of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection of rhesus macaques in a wild zoo in China.Experimental animals · 2017Article
- Development of a real-time qPCR method for detection and enumeration of Mycobacterium spp. in surface water.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2010Article
- Specific and rapid enumeration of viable but nonculturable and viable-culturable gram-negative bacteria by using flow cytometry.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A new PCR-reverse dot blot hybridization (RDBH) assay was developed for the rapid identification of Mycobacterium species in clinical isolates. The assay, which targets the 16S rRNA, was evaluated for 27 mycobacterial reference strains and 340 clinical isolates that were simultaneously identified by DNA sequencing and conventional methods, including growth characteristics, pigment production, colony morphology, and biochemical tests. All reference strains and clinical isolates hybridized to the Mycobacterium genus probe (probe M) on the membrane (100% sensitivity). Each probe had only one hybridization signal with the corresponding Mycobacterium species or complex (100% specificity). Compared with DNA sequencing, the RDBH assay correctly identified 337 (99.1% accuracy) of the 340 isolates tested. One M. asia isolate and one M. neoaurum isolate were not identified by the RDBH assay due to the absence of specific probes for the two species on the membrane. Three isolates with different nucleotide sequences from M. intracellulare reference strains had a negative hybridization signal with probe c, which is specific for M. intracellulare. The whole procedure can be completed within 2.5 h post-PCR processing. A total of 32 of 340 isolates were erroneously identified by conventional methods (90.6% accuracy). Molecular identification based on the 16S rRNA sequence was superior to the conventional approaches in speed, sensitivity, and specificity. Therefore, the RDBH assay can be considered a rapid, simple, and reliable method for routine identification of frequently occurring and clinically relevant mycobacteria.
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.