ArticleJournal of visualized experiments : JoVE2012
One-day workflow scheme for bacterial pathogen detection and antimicrobial resistance testing from blood cultures.
Article in Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- DcR3, a new biomarker for sepsis, correlates with infection severity and procalcitonin.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing with electrokinetics enhanced biosensors for diagnosis of acute bacterial infections.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2014Article
- Feasibility study demonstrating that enzymatic template generation and amplification can be employed as a novel method for molecular antimicrobial susceptibility testing.BMC microbiology · 2013Article
- Molecular detection of CF lung pathogens: current status and future potential.Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bloodstream infections are associated with high mortality rates because of the probable manifestation of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock(1). Therefore, rapid administration of adequate antibiotic therapy is of foremost importance in the treatment of bloodstream infections. The critical element in this process is timing, heavily dependent on the results of bacterial identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing. Both of these parameters are routinely obtained by culture-based testing, which is time-consuming and takes on average 24-48 hours(2, 4). The aim of the study was to develop DNA-based assays for rapid identification of bloodstream infections, as well as rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The first assay is a eubacterial 16S rDNA-based real-time PCR assay complemented with species- or genus-specific probes(5). Using these probes, Gram-negative bacteria including Pseudomonas spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli as well as Gram-positive bacteria including Staphylococcus spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus spp., Streptococcus spp., and Streptococcus pneumoniae could be distinguished. Using this multiprobe assay, a first identification of the causative micro-organism was given after 2 h. Secondly, we developed a semi-molecular assay for antibiotic susceptibility testing of S. aureus, Enterococcus spp. and (facultative) aerobe Gram-negative rods(6). This assay was based on a study in which PCR was used to measure the growth of bacteria(7). Bacteria harvested directly from blood cultures are incubated for 6 h with a selection of antibiotics, and following a Sybr Green-based real-time PCR assay determines inhibition of growth. The combination of these two methods could direct the choice of a suitable antibiotic therapy on the same day (Figure 1). In conclusion, molecular analysis of both identification and antibiotic susceptibility offers a faster alternative for pathogen detection and could improve the diagnosis of bloodstream infections.
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.