ArticleFolia microbiologica2009
Comparison of the conventional culture, the manual fluorescent MGIT system and the automated fluorescent MGIT 960 culture system for the detection of Mycobacterium avium ssp. avium in tissues of naturally infected hens.
Article in Folia microbiologica, 2009. 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.
- Detection and confirmation of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in direct quantitative PCR positive fecal samples by the manual fluorescent MGIT culture system.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2014Article
- "Mycobacterium avium subsp. hominissuis" in neck lymph nodes of children and their environment examined by culture and triplex quantitative real-time PCR.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- Tuberculosis in Birds: Insights into the Mycobacterium avium Infections.Veterinary medicine international · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Different methods for the detection of Mycobacterium avium ssp. avium (MAA) in naturally infected hens were compared. They included the conventional culture method (solid Herrold's and Stonebrink media and liquid Sula medium) and newly developed liquid culture systems, the manual mycobacteria growth indicator tube (M-MGIT) and the fully automated BACTEC MGIT 960 system (A-MGIT). 152 tissues originating from 15 naturally infected hens have been processed. The overall detection rates (percentage of positive cultures from the number of positive cultures determined by all the methods together) were 60, 70 and 76 % for the conventional media, M-MGIT and A-MGIT systems, respectively, the mean time of mycobacteria detection being 32.6, 17.6 and 14.6 d, respectively. The lowest contamination rate (2.0 %) was found in A-MGIT compared with M-MGIT (4.6 %) and conventional media (10.4 %).
Indexed as
Identifiers
19418251What 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.