Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23850948›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013

Evaluation of Luminex xTAG gastrointestinal pathogen analyte-specific reagents for high-throughput, simultaneous detection of bacteria, viruses, and parasites of clinical and public health importance.

Jose F Navidad, David J Griswold, M Stephen Gradus, Sanjib Bhattacharyya

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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 83 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 173 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Food and waterborne parasitology · 2021
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jose F NavidadCity of Milwaukee Health Department Laboratory, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
David J Griswold
M Stephen Gradus
Sanjib Bhattacharyya
Milwaukee Health Department · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute diarrheal disease (ADD) can be caused by a range of pathogens, including bacteria, viruses, and parasites. Conventional diagnostic methods, such as culture, microscopy, biochemical assays, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), are laborious and time-consuming and lack sensitivity. Combined, the array of tests performed on a single specimen can increase the turnaround time (TAT) significantly. We validated a 19plex laboratory-developed gastrointestinal pathogen panel (GPP) using Luminex xTAG analyte-specific reagents (ASRs) to simultaneously screen directly in fecal specimens for diarrhea-causing pathogens, including bacteria (Campylobacter jejuni, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli [ETEC], Shiga toxin-producing E. coli [STEC], E. coli O157:H7, Vibrio cholerae, Yersinia enterocolitica, and toxigenic Clostridium difficile), parasites (Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium spp., and Entamoeba histolytica), and viruses (norovirus GI and GII, adenovirus 40/41, and rotavirus A). Performance characteristics of GPP ASRs were determined using 48 reference isolates and 254 clinical specimens. Stool specimens from individuals with diarrhea were tested for pathogens using conventional and molecular methods. Using the predictive methods as standards, the sensitivities of the GPP ASRs were 100% for adenovirus 40/41, norovirus, rotavirus A, Vibrio cholerae, Yersinia enterocolitica, Entamoeba histolytica, Cryptosporidium spp., and E. coli O157:H7; 95% for Giardia lamblia; 94% for ETEC and STEC; 93% for Shigella spp.; 92% for Salmonella spp.; 91% for C. difficile A/B toxins; and 90% for Campylobacter jejuni. The overall comparative performance of the GPP ASRs with conventional methods in clinical samples was 94.5% (range, 90% to 97%), with 99% (99.0% to 99.9%) specificity. Implementation of the GPP ASRs enables our public health laboratory to offer highly sensitive and specific screening and identification of the major ADD-causing pathogens.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriaBacterial InfectionsClinical Laboratory TechniquesDiarrheaGastrointestinal DiseasesHumansIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticParasitesRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityVirus DiseasesViruses

Identifiers

PMID23850948
PMCPMC3754681
OpenAlexW2107786593

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.