Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22322348›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical microbiology2012

Diagnostic performance of a multiple real-time PCR assay in patients with suspected sepsis hospitalized in an internal medicine ward.

Leonella Pasqualini, Antonella Mencacci, Christian Leli, Paolo Montagna, Angela Cardaccia, Elio Cenci, Ines Montecarlo, Matteo Pirro, Francesco di Filippo, Emma Cistaro and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Ecthyma Gangrenosum:Frontiers in microbiology · 2017
    Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leonella PasqualiniInternal Medicine, Angiology and Arteriosclerosis Diseases Section, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
Antonella Mencacci
Christian Leli
Paolo Montagna
Angela Cardaccia
Elio Cenci
Ines Montecarlo
Matteo Pirro
Francesco di Filippo
Emma Cistaro
Giuseppe Schillaci
Francesco Bistoni
Elmo Mannarino
University of Perugia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early identification of causative pathogen in sepsis patients is pivotal to improve clinical outcome. SeptiFast (SF), a commercially available system for molecular diagnosis of sepsis based on PCR, has been mostly used in patients hospitalized in hematology and intensive care units. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and clinical usefulness of SF, compared to blood culture (BC), in 391 patients with suspected sepsis, hospitalized in a department of internal medicine. A causative pathogen was identified in 85 patients (22%). Sixty pathogens were detected by SF and 57 by BC. No significant differences were found between the two methods in the rates of pathogen detection (P = 0.74), even after excluding 9 pathogens which were isolated by BC and were not included in the SF master list (P = 0.096). The combination of SF and BC significantly improved the diagnostic yield in comparison to BC alone (P < 0.001). Compared to BC, SF showed a significantly lower contamination rate (0 versus 19 cases; P < 0.001) with a higher specificity for pathogen identification (1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.99 to 1.00, versus 0.94, 95% CI of 0.90 to 0.96; P = 0.005) and a higher positive predictive value (1.00, 95% CI of 1.00 to 0.92%, versus 0.75, 95% CI of 0.63 to 0.83; P = 0.005). In the subgroup of patients (n = 191) who had been receiving antibiotic treatment for ≥24 h, SF identified more pathogens (16 versus 6; P = 0.049) compared to BC. These results suggest that, in patients with suspected sepsis, hospitalized in an internal medicine ward, SF could be a highly valuable adjunct to conventional BC, particularly in patients under antibiotic treatment.

Indexed as

Molecular Diagnostic TechniquesMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBacteremiaBacteriaCandida albicansCandidemiaDNA, Ribosomal SpacerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityDNA, Ribosomal Spacer

Identifiers

PMID22322348
PMCPMC3318564
OpenAlexW2041876204

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.