ArticleWorld journal of microbiology & biotechnology2014
Comparison of 16S rRNA sequencing with biochemical testing for species-level identification of clinical isolates of Neisseria spp.
Article in World journal of microbiology & biotechnology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genotyping of commensal Neisseria spp strains by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and 16S rRNA gene sequencing.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
- Utility of 16S rDNA Sequencing for Identification of Rare Pathogenic Bacteria.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare accuracy of genus and species level identification of Neisseria spp. using biochemical testing and 16S rRNA sequence analysis. These methods were evaluated using 85 Neisseria spp. clinical isolates initially identified to the genus level by conventional biochemical tests and API NH system (Bio-Mérieux(®)). In 34 % (29/85), more than one possibility was given by 16S rRNA sequence analysis. In 6 % (5/85), one of the possibilities offered by 16S rRNA gene sequencing, agreed with the result given by biochemical testing. In 4 % (3/85), the same species was given by both methods. 16S rRNA gene sequencing results did not correlate well with biochemical tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24671298What 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.