Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20065332›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2010

The era of molecular and other non-culture-based methods in diagnosis of sepsis.

Nicasio Mancini, Silvia Carletti, Nadia Ghidoli, Paola Cichero, Roberto Burioni, Massimo Clementi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 159 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
159citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

159 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Real-TimeACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Novel Diagnostic Methods for Infective Endocarditis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

99 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

6 authors.

Nicasio ManciniLaboratorio di Microbiologia e Virologia, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Diagnostica e Ricerca San Raffaele, Milano, Italia. mancini.nicasio@hsr.it
Silvia Carletti
Nadia Ghidoli
Paola Cichero
Roberto Burioni
Massimo Clementi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sepsis, a leading cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world, is a clinical syndrome with signs and symptoms relating to an infectious event and the consequent important inflammatory response. From a clinical point of view, sepsis is a continuous process ranging from systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) to multiple-organ-dysfunction syndrome (MODS). Blood cultures are the current "gold standard" for diagnosis, and they are based on the detection of viable microorganisms present in blood. However, on some occasions, blood cultures have intrinsic limitations in terms of sensitivity and rapidity, and it is not expected that these drawbacks will be overcome by significant improvements in the near future. For these principal reasons, other approaches are therefore needed in association with blood culture to improve the overall diagnostic yield for septic patients. These considerations have represented the rationale for the development of highly sensitive and fast laboratory methods. This review addresses non-culture-based techniques for the diagnosis of sepsis, including molecular and other non-culture-based methods. In particular, the potential clinical role for the sensitive and rapid detection of bacterial and fungal DNA in the development of new diagnostic algorithms is discussed.

Indexed as

Bacterial InfectionsBloodClinical Laboratory TechniquesHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMycosesSensitivity and SpecificitySepsisTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID20065332
PMCPMC2806664

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.