Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24020074›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2013

Modern clinical microbiology: new challenges and solutions.

Pierre-Edouard Fournier, Michel Drancourt, Philippe Colson, Jean-Marc Rolain, Bernard La Scola, Didier Raoult

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

124 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. A multi-site observational study of rationality assessment for carbapenem use in China: carbapenem stewardship opportunities.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Advances in biosensors for bacterial detection and identification.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

64 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

6 authors.

Pierre-Edouard FournierUnité de Recherche sur les Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales Emergentes, UM63, CNRS7278, IRD198, INSERMU1095, Marseille, France.
Michel Drancourt
Philippe Colson
Jean-Marc Rolain
Bernard La Scola
Didier Raoult

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the twenty-first century, the clinical microbiology laboratory plays a central part in optimizing the management of infectious diseases and surveying local and global epidemiology. This pivotal role is made possible by the adoption of rational sampling, point-of-care tests, extended automation and new technologies, including mass spectrometry for colony identification, real-time genomics for isolate characterization, and versatile and permissive culture systems. When balanced with cost, these developments can improve the workflow and output of clinical microbiology laboratories and, by identifying and characterizing microbial pathogens, provide significant input to scientific discovery.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAutomation, LaboratoryBacteriaCommunicable DiseasesDisease NotificationDrug Resistance, BacterialHumansMicrobiological TechniquesQuality ControlSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationVirusesAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID24020074
PMCPMC7097238

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.