ReviewEnfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica2008
[Automatic detection of bacterial and fungal infections in blood].
Review in Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A high leukocyte count and administration of hydrocortisone hamper PCR-based diagnostics for bloodstream infections.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Article
- Influence of antibiotic treatment on the detection of S. aureus in whole blood following pathogen enrichment.BMC microbiology · 2019Article
- The effect of a rapid molecular blood test on the use of antibiotics for nosocomial sepsis: a randomized clinical trial.Journal of intensive care · 2019Article
- Molecular diagnosis of sepsis: New aspects and recent developments.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2014Article
- Multiplex PCR performed of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid increases pathogen identification rate in critically ill patients with pneumonia: a pilot study.Annals of intensive care · 2014Article
- Microbial diagnostics in patients with presumed severe infection in the emergency department.Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 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
Sepsis is one of the main causes of mortality and morbidity in hospitals. Early detection of pathogens using nucleic acid-based techniques speeds diagnosis of bacteremia and/or fungemia, aids the rapid application of appropriate antibiotics, reduces the use of unnecessary antibiotics, and lowers mortality. Two commercially available techniques that help to identify different sepsisproducing bacteria and fungi in a shorter time period are: LightCycler SeptiFast Test Mgrade (Roche Diagnostic SL) and GenoType Blood Culture (Hain Lifescience). We present the results of an initial in-house study using the LightCycler SeptiFast Test Mgrade. The study was carried out in 50 samples from 28 patients (1-3 samples per patient) with septic syndrome admitted to the intensive care unit by comparing the new technique with conventional blood culture. The concordance between the results of blood culture and SeptiFast was good, 79%, in the first trial and 89% in the second, after correcting for technical defects. We initially observed substantial inhibition of internal controls in Gram-negative bacilli, due to the presence of heparin in the blood used, and excess DNA because of the high number of leucocytes. To minimize these inhibitions, the second study used 24 samples at half the original volume (extracted DNA at 1/4 concentration). With these modifications, inhibitions were substantially reduced. SeptiFast is more effective than blood culture in discriminating between contamination by coagulase-negative staphylococci and species of streptococci.
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.