Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22363564›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Highly sensitive detection of Staphylococcus aureus directly from patient blood.

Padmapriya P Banada, Soumitesh Chakravorty, Darshini Shah, Michele Burday, Fermina M Mazzella, David Alland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. An advanced and efficient asymmetric PCR method for microarray applications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

6 authors.

Padmapriya P BanadaDivision for Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, New Jersey Medical School-University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Soumitesh Chakravorty
Darshini Shah
Michele Burday
Fermina M Mazzella
David Alland

Funding

Integrated Dual-Use Systems for Bio-Defense & Sepsis DiagnosisU01AI075490 · NIAID · UNIV OF MED/DENT OF NJ-NJ MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI ALLAND, DAVID · 2007 to 2010
$1.9M
NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI075490NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI75490
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid detection of bloodstream infections (BSIs) can be lifesaving. We investigated the sample processing and assay parameters necessary for highly-sensitive detection of bloodstream bacteria, using Staphylococcus aureus as a model pathogen and an automated fluidic sample processing-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) platform as a model diagnostic system. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe compared a short 128 bp amplicon hemi-nested PCR and a relatively shorter 79 bp amplicon nested PCR targeting the S. aureus nuc and sodA genes, respectively. The sodA nested assay showed an enhanced limit of detection (LOD) of 5 genomic copies per reaction or 10 colony forming units (CFU) per ml blood over 50 copies per reaction or 50 CFU/ml for the nuc assay. To establish optimal extraction protocols, we investigated the relative abundance of the bacteria in different components of the blood (white blood cells (WBCs), plasma or whole blood), using the above assays. The blood samples were obtained from the patients who were culture positive for S. aureus. Whole blood resulted in maximum PCR positives with sodA assay (90% positive) as opposed to cell-associated bacteria (in WBCs) (71% samples positive) or free bacterial DNA in plasma (62.5% samples positive). Both the assays were further tested for direct detection of S. aureus in patient whole blood samples that were contemporaneous culture positive. S. aureus was detected in 40/45 of culture-positive patients (sensitivity 89%, 95% CI 0.75-0.96) and 0/59 negative controls with the sodA assay (specificity 100%, 95% CI 0.92-1).

conclusionsWe have demonstrated a highly sensitive two-hour assay for detection of sepsis causing bacteria like S. aureus directly in 1 ml of whole blood, without the need for blood culture.

Indexed as

Blood Specimen CollectionBiological AssayBlood CellsGenes, BacterialHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityStaphylococcus aureus

Identifiers

PMID22363564
PMCPMC3281916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.