ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2014
Application of microarray technology for the detection of intracranial bacterial infection.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A predictive model for secondary central nervous system infection after craniotomy based on machine learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The preparation and clinical application of diagnostic DNA microarray for the detection of pathogens in intracranial bacterial and fungal infections.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018Article
- Analysis of microbial community composition and diversity in postoperative intracranial infection using high‑throughput sequencing.Molecular medicine reports · 2017Article
- Separation of cordycepin fromExperimental and therapeutic medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the value of microarray technology for the detection of intracranial bacterial infection. A small gene chip was prepared based on the four pathogens commonly known to cause intracranial infection and the corresponding six types of common resistance genes in The Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University and The Affiliated Haian People's Hospital of Nantong University. Cerebrospinal fluid samples were then collected from 30 patients with clinically diagnosed intracranial infection for the detection of the bacteria and resistance genes. The results were compared with the bacterial culture and sensitivity test results from the Department of Clinical Laboratories. The laboratory bacterial culture took 4-5 days, and revealed that 12 cases were positive and 18 cases were negative for bacteria. The microarray analysis took 1 day, and bacteria and resistance genes were detected in 15 cases. The 16S gene and drug resistance genes were detected in 8 cases; however, the bacterial strain was not identified. Seven cases appeared negative for bacteria and resistance genes. Microarray technology is rapid, sensitive and suitable for use in the detection of intracranial infections and other diseases for which conventional bacterial culture has a low positive rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.