Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23636778›Full record

ReviewMolecular diagnosis & therapy2013

Commercial multiplex technologies for the microbiological diagnosis of sepsis.

Evan E Lebovitz, Peter D Burbelo

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Real-time polymerase chain reaction and culture in the diagnosis of invasive group B streptococcal disease in infants: a retrospective study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2015
    Article
  16. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Evan E LebovitzDepartment of Perioperative Medicine, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Peter D Burbelo
National Institutes of Health · USNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center · US

Funding

Mechanisms of Pain and Immune ProcessesZIACL090034 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI MANNES, ANDREW · 2014 to 2025
$0k
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 DA999999Intramural NIH HHS Z99 DE999999Intramural NIH HHS Z99 OD999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In patients with suspected sepsis, rapid and accurate diagnosis of the causative infectious agent is critical. Although clinicians often use empiric antimicrobial therapy until the blood cultures are available to potentially adjust treatment, this approach is often not optimum for patient care. Recently, several commercial molecular multiplex technologies have shown promise for fast and comprehensive diagnosis of microorganisms and their antimicrobial resistance signatures. While one class of multiplex technologies is directed at improving the speed and diagnostic information obtained from positive blood cultures, the other identifies the causative microorganisms directly from clinical blood samples. This review provides an overview of these molecular technologies and describes their performance capabilities compared to standard blood cultures and in some cases to each other. We discuss the current clinical impact, limitations, and likely futures advances these multiplex technologies may have in guiding the management of patients with sepsis.

Indexed as

Molecular Diagnostic TechniquesPolymerase Chain ReactionBlood CellsHumansSepsis

Identifiers

PMID23636778
PMCPMC3720738
OpenAlexW2060052516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.