Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25523034›Full record

ArticleFolia microbiologica2015

PCR diagnostic system in the treatment of prosthetic joint infections.

D Jahoda, I Landor, J Benedík, D Pokorný, T Judl, V Barták, I Jahodová, P Fulín, M Síbek

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Folia microbiologica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

D Jahoda1st Orthopedic Clinic in Motol Teaching Hospital, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University in Prague, V Úvalu 84, Prague 5, Czech Republic.
I Landor
J Benedík
D Pokorný
T Judl
V Barták
I Jahodová
P Fulín
M Síbek

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In our prospective study, we examined whether a multiplex PCR diagnostic method is suitable for the primary detection of pathogens. We also examined the possibility and sensitivity of detecting genes responsible for biofilm production and methicillin resistance. From 2007 to 2009, 94 patients were included in the study. A UNB (universal detection of 16S ribosomal bacterial DNA) and UNF (universal detection of pathogenic fungi) were used in the primary detection. A multiplex assay for biofilm production, methicillin resistance allowed us to distinguish between Gram positivity and negativity and to detect Staphylococci. From all the samples, the culture was positive in 53.2 % of cases, and by using the UNB method, we detected bacteria in 79.8 % of cases-the UNF detection of fungi was positive in 10.6 % of cases. In 75 % of positive findings, we detected a Gram-negative bacterium in 65.3 % of cases. In 47.2 % of Staphylococci detected, the ability to produce biofilm was confirmed. 61.1 % of the Staphylococci exhibited a methicillin resistance. Our multiplex scheme cannot yet fully replace microbial cultivation but can be a rational guide when choosing an appropriate antibiotic therapy in cases where the microbial culture is negative.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBacterial ProteinsFemaleGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHumansJoint ProsthesisMaleMiddle AgedMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionProspective StudiesProsthesis-Related InfectionsStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcusBacterial Proteins

Identifiers

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.