ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2014
Comparison of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis & repetitive sequence-based PCR methods for molecular epidemiological studies of Escherichia coli clinical isolates.
Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extended spectrum beta-lactamase producingAntimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2019Article
- Epidemiological aspects of healthcare-associated infections and microbial genomics.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2018Review
- High-Resolution Melting Analysis for Rapid Detection of Sequence Type 131 Escherichia coli.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
objectivesPFGE, rep-PCR, and MLST are widely used to identify related bacterial isolates and determine epidemiologic associations during outbreaks. This study was performed to compare the ability of repetitive sequence-based PCR (rep-PCR) and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) to determine the genetic relationships among Escherichia coli isolates assigned to various sequence types (STs) by two multilocus sequence typing (MLST) schemes.
methodsA total of 41 extended-spectrum β-lactamase- (ESBL-) and/or AmpC β-lactamase-producing E. coli clinical isolates were included in this study. MLST experiments were performed following the Achtman's MLST scheme and the Whittam's MLST scheme, respectively. Rep-PCR experiments were performed using the DiversiLab system. PFGE experiments were also performed.
resultsA comparison of the two MLST methods demonstrated that these two schemes yielded compatible results. PFGE correctly segregated E. coli isolates belonging to different STs as different types, but did not group E. coli isolates belonging to the same ST in the same group. Rep-PCR accurately grouped E. coli isolates belonging to the same ST together, but this method demonstrated limited ability to discriminate between E. coli isolates belonging to different STs. INTERPRETATION &
conclusionsThese results suggest that PFGE would be more effective when investigating outbreaks in a limited space, such as a specialty hospital or an intensive care unit, whereas rep-PCR should be used for nationwide or worldwide epidemiology studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25579152PMC4311324What 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.