ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2012
PCR identification of bacteria in blood culture does not fit the daily workflow of a routine microbiology laboratory.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent advances in gold nanoparticle-based lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of bacterial infection.Archives of microbiology · 2021Review
- Multiplex detection of bacteria on an integrated centrifugal disk using bead-beating lysis and loop-mediated amplification.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Molecular diagnosis of sepsis: New aspects and recent developments.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2014Article
- Direct bacterial identification in positive blood cultures by use of two commercial matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry systems.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
- Evaluation of a microarray-based assay for rapid identification of Gram-positive organisms and resistance markers in positive blood cultures.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We have evaluated the GenoType blood culture assay (Hain Lifescience, Nehren, Germany) for the identification of bacteria in 233 positive blood cultures and assessed its suitability in the workflow of a routine microbiology laboratory. In 68/233 (29.2%) samples, the culture result could not be confirmed by the GenoType assay due to a lack of primers in the test, multiple organisms in the sample, or inconsistency with respect to the identification by culture. Although the GenoType blood culture assay gives satisfactory results for bacteria for which primers are available, there are difficulties in applying the test in the routine microbiology laboratory.
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.