Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22489109›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2012

Comparison of culture and molecular identification of bacteria in chronic wounds.

Daniel D Rhoads, Randall D Wolcott, Yan Sun, Scot E Dowd

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 214 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

30 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel D RhoadsSouthwest Regional Wound Care Center, Lubbock, TX 79410, USA.
Randall D WolcottSouthwest Regional Wound Care Center, Lubbock, TX 79410, USA.
Yan SunResearch and Testing Laboratory, Lubbock, TX 79407, USA.
Scot E DowdResearch and Testing Laboratory, Lubbock, TX 79407, USA.
Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station · USSouthwest Regional Wound Care Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical diagnostics of chronic polymicrobial infections, such as those found in chronic wounds, represent a diagnostic challenge for both culture and molecular methods. In the current retrospective study, the results of aerobic bacterial cultures and culture-free bacterial identification using DNA analyses were compared. A total of 168 chronic wounds were studied. The majority of bacteria identified with culture testing were also identified with molecular testing, but the majority of bacteria identified with the molecular testing were not identified with culture testing. Seventeen (17) different bacterial taxa were identified with culture, and 338 different bacterial taxa were identified with molecular testing. This study demonstrates the increased sensitivity that molecular microbial identification can have over culture methodologies, and previous studies suggest that molecular bacterial identification can improve the clinical outcomes of patients with chronic wounds.

Indexed as

BacteriaBacterial Typing TechniquesChronic DiseaseHumansMolecular TypingRNA, Ribosomal, 16SWounds and InjuriesRNA, Ribosomal, 16Sbiofilmdiagnosismolecularwound

Identifiers

PMID22489109
PMCPMC3317672
OpenAlexW2011686711

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.