ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Clinical evaluation of the walk-away specimen processor and ESwab for recovery of Streptococcus agalactiae isolates in prenatal screening specimens.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. 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.
- Evaluation of Group BMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Copan Walk Away Specimen Processor (WASP) Automated System for Pathogen Detection in Female Reproductive Tract Specimens.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
- Prevalence, antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, serotypes and risk factors for group B streptococcus rectovaginal isolates among pregnant women at Kenyatta National Hospital, Kenya; a cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Impact of total laboratory automation on workflow and specimen processing time for culture of urine specimens.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2018Article
- Detection of Group B Streptococcus Directly from Collected ESwab Samples by Use of the BD Max GBS Assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rectal/vaginal specimens (n = 97) were collected in parallel using ESwab and Liquid Stuart (LS) rayon fiber wrapped swab collection devices. Each collection device was used to directly inoculate culture medium and LIM broth. Medium inoculation by ESwab was conducted using the Walk-Away specimen processor (WASP). Medium inoculation by the LS device was conducted manually. The sensitivities of ESwab and LS upon direct plating were 93.8% and 87.5%, respectively, and increased to 96.9% and 90.6%, respectively, following broth enrichment.
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.