Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22514386›Full record

ArticleThe Canadian journal of infectious diseases = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses1995

Epidemiological typing of Moraxella catarrhalis by pulsed field gel electrophoresis.

S M Davison, D E Low, R H Cruz, D Beaulieu, S R Scriver

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Canadian journal of infectious diseases = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 78% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

S M DavisonDepartment of Microbiology, Mount Sinai and Princess Margaret Hospitals, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; and Department of Microbiology, Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute, Wallingford, Connecticut, USA.
D E Low
R H Cruz
D Beaulieu
S R Scriver
University of Toronto · CABristol-Myers Squibb (United States) · USMount Sinai Hospital · CAPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pulsed field gel electrophoresis (pfge) was used to compare 59 strains of Moraxella catarrhalis to evaluate pfge for the epidemiological typing of this organism. pfge-generated patterns were compared with those obtained by small fragment restriction enzyme analysis (rea) and species-specific probe hybridization. The strains used in the study were isolated from various geographic locations and included proven epidemiologically related strains. pfge yielded more unique patterns than dna-dna hybridization - 30 versus 18, respectively - but fewer than rea, which generated 45 unique patterns. Strains that demonstrated the same rea pattern or dna-dna hybridization pattern did not always demonstrate the same pfge pattern. For example, in 23 epidemiologically unrelated strains that shared six rea patterns, pfge differentiated the isolates into 12 patterns. Conversely, strains that demonstrated the same pfge pattern did not always demonstrate the same rea pattern or hybridization pattern. For example, in 42 strains that shared 13 pfge patterns, rea differentiated the isolates into 31 patterns and dna-dna hybridization differentiated them into 16 patterns. However, compared with rea, pfge yielded less complex patterns that were more easily comparable, and compared with dna-dna hybridization, pfge was technically easier.

Indexed as

Gene probingMoraxella catarrhalisPulsed field gel electrophoresisRestriction enzyme analysis

Identifiers

PMID22514386
PMCPMC3327914
OpenAlexW2319325298

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.