ArticleCurrent infectious disease reports2013
The potential for PCR based testing to improve diagnosis and treatment of sepsis.
Article in Current infectious disease reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- PCSK9 is a critical regulator of the innate immune response and septic shock outcome.Science translational medicine · 2014Trial
- Culture-independent identification of bloodstream infections from whole blood: prospective evaluation in specimens of known infection status.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections in the critically ill: Evaluation of the broad-range PCR/ESI-MS technology.PloS one · 2018Article
- The IRIDICA BAC BSI Assay: Rapid, Sensitive and Culture-Independent Identification of Bacteria and Candida in Blood.PloS one · 2016Article
- Sepsis outside intensive care unit: the other side of the coin.Infection · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early and appropriate antibiotic use is critical for the treatment of sepsis. In practice, however, early antibiotic administration is hampered by diagnostic uncertainty with regard to both early diagnosis of disease and delayed or absent microbiological results. The diagnostic uncertainty often persists into the later stages of sepsis when clinical response to antibiotic treatment is assessed. Blood culture, the current "gold standard" test for diagnosis of sepsis, is inadequate due to low sensitivity and delayed results. However, despite this, the technology remains entrenched in microbiology laboratories due to decades of accumulated experience with the technique. However, in recent years there has been increasing experience with testing based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR). As the technology continues to improve, PCR testing is becoming faster and more sensitive. Moreover, PCR technologies that quantify bacterial load may enable monitoring of response to treatment and susceptibility testing.
Identifiers
23929539What 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.