ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2012
Swab protocol for rapid laboratory diagnosis of cutaneous anthrax.
Article 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 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anthrax: A narrative review.New microbes and new infections · 2024Review
- First PCR Confirmed anthrax outbreaks in Ethiopia-Amhara region, 2018-2019.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Detection of Bacillus anthracis in animal tissues using InBios active anthrax detect rapid test lateral flow immunoassay.Letters in applied microbiology · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical laboratory diagnosis of cutaneous anthrax is generally established by conventional microbiological methods, such as culture and directly straining smears of clinical specimens. However, these methods rely on recovery of viable Bacillus anthracis cells from swabs of cutaneous lesions and often yield negative results. This study developed a rapid protocol for detection of B. anthracis on clinical swabs. Three types of swabs, flocked-nylon, rayon, and polyester, were evaluated by 3 extraction methods, the swab extraction tube system (SETS), sonication, and vortex. Swabs were spiked with virulent B. anthracis cells, and the methods were compared for their efficiency over time by culture and real-time PCR. Viability testing indicated that the SETS yielded greater recovery of B. anthracis from 1-day-old swabs; however, reduced viability was consistent for the 3 extraction methods after 7 days and nonviability was consistent by 28 days. Real-time PCR analysis showed that the PCR amplification was not impacted by time for any swab extraction method and that the SETS method provided the lowest limit of detection. When evaluated using lesion swabs from cutaneous anthrax outbreaks, the SETS yielded culture-negative, PCR-positive results. This study demonstrated that swab extraction methods differ in their efficiency of recovery of viable B. anthracis cells. Furthermore, the results indicated that culture is not reliable for isolation of B. anthracis from swabs at ≥ 7 days. Thus, we recommend the use of the SETS method with subsequent testing by culture and real-time PCR for diagnosis of cutaneous anthrax from clinical swabs of cutaneous lesions.
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.