ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013
Comparative evaluation of conventional and real-time PCR assays for detecting Bacteroides fragilis in clinical samples.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Validation of a long-read 16S rRNA-gene sequencing approach for analysis of clinical samples and bacterial identification in a routine clinical laboratory.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Analysis of Characteristics of Bovine-Derived Non-EnterotoxigenicMicroorganisms · 2024Article
- Nonhuman Primate Adenoviruses of the Human Adenovirus B Species Are Potent and Broadly Acting Oncolytic Vector Candidates.Human gene therapy · 2022Article
- Bloodstream infection caused byThe Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Development of a Multiplex PCR Platform for the Rapid Detection of Bacteria, Antibiotic Resistance, andFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2019Article
- Simultaneous Supplementation ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- Isolation, Detection, and Characterization of Enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis in Clinical Samples.The open microbiology journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A conventional PCR and a real-time PCR for detecting Bacteroides fragilis were evaluated against clinical specimens. Analytical sensitivities were 100 and 40 fg of DNA, respectively. Detection limits were 100 and 10 CFU/ml, respectively. A total of six culture-negative specimens were positive by PCR. Altering the gold standard from "positive culture" to "positive culture or both PCR assays positive" resulted in sensitivities of 91.7% and 100%, respectively, and in specificities of 100% and 98.6%, respectively.
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.