Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23966498›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013

Rapid and direct real-time detection of blaKPC and blaNDM from surveillance samples.

Shawn Vasoo, Scott A Cunningham, Peggy C Kohner, Jayawant N Mandrekar, Karen Lolans, Mary K Hayden, Robin Patel

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation 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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Multiple PCRRevista espanola de salud publica · 2023
    Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2015
    Review
  15. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shawn VasooDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology.
Scott A Cunningham
Peggy C Kohner
Jayawant N Mandrekar
Karen Lolans
Mary K Hayden
Robin Patel
Rush University Medical Center · USMayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We assessed the performance of a duplex real-time PCR assay for bla(KPC) and bla(NDM) performed directly (D-PCR) on perianal and perirectal swabs and stool. Spiked specimens and 126 clinical surveillance swabs (comprising a sensitivity panel of 46 perirectal double swabs previously determined to be culture positive for bla(KPC)-PCR-positive Enterobacteriaceae and a specificity panel of 80 perianal swabs from patients at risk of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae [CPE] colonization) were studied. For the surveillance swabs, D-PCR was compared to PCR after broth enrichment (BE-PCR) and two culture-based methods: the HardyCHROM ESBL agar (HC-A) and the CDC screening (CDC-A) methods. PCR was performed on morphologically distinct colonies that were isolated by culture. All of the initial PCR testing was done without extraction using a simple lysis procedure. The analytical sensitivities of D-PCR for bla(KPC) were 9 CFU/μl (for swabs) and 90 CFU/μl (for stool), and for bla(NDM), it was 1.9 CFU/μl (for both swabs and stool). In the clinical sensitivity panel, D-PCR and BE-PCR were initially positive for bla(KPC) in 41/46 (89.1%) and 43/46 (93.5%) swabs, respectively. The swabs that were initially negative by D-PCR (n = 5) and BE-PCR (n = 3) were visibly stool soiled; all swabs were bla(KPC) positive upon repeat testing after lysate extraction. The CDC-A and HC-A yielded bla(KPC)-positive Enterobacteriaceae from 36/46 (78.3%) and 35/46 (76.1%) swabs, respectively (sensitivities of D-PCR/BE-PCR postextraction of soiled specimens versus HC-A, P = 0.0009, and versus CDC-A, P = 0.0016). All swabs in the specificity panel were negative for CPE by all four methods. D-PCR allows for the timely detection of bla(KPC) and bla(NDM) carriage with excellent sensitivity when specimens visibly soiled with stool undergo preparatory extraction.

Indexed as

beta-LactamasesEnterobacteriaceaeEnterobacteriaceae InfectionsEpidemiological MonitoringHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityTime Factorsbeta-Lactamases

Identifiers

PMID23966498
PMCPMC3889741
OpenAlexW2113942471

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.