Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18008085›Full record

ArticleMedical microbiology and immunology2008

A multiplex real-time PCR assay for rapid detection and differentiation of 25 bacterial and fungal pathogens from whole blood samples.

Lutz Eric Lehmann, Klaus-Peter Hunfeld, Thomas Emrich, Gerd Haberhausen, Heimo Wissing, Andreas Hoeft, Frank Stüber

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical microbiology and immunology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 127 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
127citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

127 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

67 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Lutz Eric LehmannKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesie und operative Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Strasse 25, Bonn, Germany.
Klaus-Peter Hunfeld
Thomas Emrich
Gerd Haberhausen
Heimo Wissing
Andreas Hoeft
Frank Stüber

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early detection of bloodstream infections (BSI) is crucial in the clinical setting. Blood culture remains the gold standard for diagnosing BSI. Molecular diagnostic tools can contribute to a more rapid diagnosis in septic patients. Here, a multiplex real-time PCR-based assay for rapid detection of 25 clinically important pathogens directly from whole blood in <6 h is presented. Minimal analytical sensitivity was determined by hit rate analysis from 20 independent experiments. At a concentration of 3 CFU/ml a hit rate of 50% was obtained for E. aerogenes and 100% for S. marcescens, E. coli, P. mirabilis, P. aeruginosa, and A. fumigatus. The hit rate for C. glabrata was 75% at 30 CFU/ml. Comparing PCR identification results with conventional microbiology for 1,548 clinical isolates yielded an overall specificity of 98.8%. The analytical specificity in 102 healthy blood donors was 100%. Although further evaluation is warranted, our assay holds promise for more rapid pathogen identification in clinical sepsis.

Indexed as

BacteremiaBacteriaBacterial Typing TechniquesDNA, BacterialDNA, FungalFungemiaFungiHumansMycological Typing TechniquesPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityDNA, BacterialDNA, Fungal

Identifiers

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.