ArticlePloS one2011
Evaluation of high-throughput PCR and microarray-based assay in conjunction with automated DNA extraction instruments for diagnosis of sepsis.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Procalcitonin Compared to C-Reactive Protein and Interleukin 6 in Recognizing Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infection: A Meta-Analytic Study.Disease markers · 2020Pooled it
- A novel flow cytometry assay based on bacteriophage-derived proteins for Staphylococcus detection in blood.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Solid and Suspension Microarrays for Microbial Diagnostics.Methods in microbiology · 2015Article
- Efficacy of a novel PCR- and microarray-based method in diagnosis of a prosthetic joint infection.Acta orthopaedica · 2014Article
- Commercial multiplex technologies for the microbiological diagnosis of sepsis.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2013Review
- Assessment of a semi-automated protocol for multiplex analysis of sepsis-causing bacteria with spiked whole blood samples.MicrobiologyOpen · 2013Article
- Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh incidence of septic patients increases the pressure of faster and more reliable bacterial identification methods to adapt patient management towards focused and effective treatment options. The aim of this study was to assess two automated DNA extraction solutions with the PCR and microarray-based assay to enable rapid and reliable detection and speciation of causative agents in the diagnosis of sepsis. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe evaluated two automated DNA instruments NucliSENS® easyMAG® and NorDiag Arrow for the preparation of blood culture samples. A set of 91 samples flagged as positive during incubation was analyzed prospectively with the high-throughput generation of Prove-it™ Sepsis assay designed to identify over 60 gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial species as well as methicillin resistance marker from a blood culture. Bacterial findings were accurately reported from 77 blood culture samples, whereas 14 samples were reported as negative, containing bacteria not belonging to the pathogen panel of the assay. No difference was observed between the performance of NorDiag Arrow or NucliSENS® easyMAG® with regard to the result reporting of Prove-it™ Sepsis. In addition, we also assessed the quality and quantity of DNA extracted from the clinical Escherichia coli isolate with DNA extraction instruments. We observed only minor differences between the two instruments.
conclusionsUse of automated and standardized sample preparation methods together with rapid, multiplex pathogen detection offers a strategy to speed up reliably the diagnostics of septic patients. Both tested DNA extraction devices were shown to be feasible for blood culture samples and the Prove-it™ Sepsis assay, providing an accurate identification of pathogen within 4.5 hours when the detected pathogen was in the repertoire of the test.
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.