Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25200110›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2014

Comparative study of bacteriological culture and real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) and multiplex PCR-based reverse line blot (mPCR/RLB) hybridization assay in the diagnosis of bacterial neonatal meningitis.

Yajuan Wang, Gaili Guo, Huixin Wang, Xuefang Yang, Fang Shao, Caiyun Yang, Wei Gao, Zhujun Shao, Jinjing Zhang, Jie Luo and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A novel real-time PCR assay for the simultaneous detection of the four main causes of bacterial meningitis.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Iranian journal of microbiology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Detection ofInfectious disease reports · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Impact of Laboratory Methods and Gene Targets on Detection ofReports of biochemistry & molecular biology · 2020
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Yajuan WangNeonatal Center, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100045, China. cxswyj@vip.sina.com.
Gaili Guo
Huixin Wang
Xuefang Yang
Fang Shao
Caiyun Yang
Wei Gao
Zhujun Shao
Jinjing Zhang
Jie Luo
Yonghong Yang
Fanrong Kong
Bingqing Zhu
Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Children’s Hospital · CNWestmead Institute for Medical Research · AUChinese Center For Disease Control and Prevention · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBacterial meningitis is more common in the neonatal period than any other time in life; however, it is still a challenge for the evidence based diagnosis. Strategy for identification of neonatal bacterial meningitis pathogens is presented by evaluating three different available methods to establish evidence-based diagnosis for neonatal bacterial meningitis.

methodsThe cerebrospinal fluid samples from 56 neonates diagnosed as bacterial meningitis in 2009 in Beijing Children's Hospital were analyzed in the study. Two PCR based molecular assays, real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) and multiplex PCR based-reverse line blot hybridization (mPCR/RLB), were used to assess 7 common neonatal meningitis bacterial pathongens, including Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Listerisa monocytogenes, Neisseria meningitidis, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus agalactiae. The findings in examinations of two assays were compared with the results obtained bacterial culture tests.

resultsBacterial meningitis was identified in five cases (9%) by CSF cultures, 25 (45%) by RT-PCR and 16 (29%) by mPCR/RLB. One strain of S. epidermidis and one of E. faecalis were identified using mPCR/RLB but not by RT-PCR. In contrast, cultures identified one strain of S. pneumoniae which was missed by both PCR assays. Overall, the bacterial pathogens in 28 cases were identified with these three methods. Both RT-PCR and mPCR/RLB assays were more sensitive than bacterial culture, (p < 0.05).

conclusionOur study confirmed that both RT-PCR and mPCR/RLB assays have better sensitivity than bacterial culture. They are capable of detecting the pathogens in CSF samples with negative culture results.

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsHumansInfant, NewbornMaleMeningitis, BacterialMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID25200110
PMCPMC4165992
OpenAlexW2077012660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.