Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25788551›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015

Comparison of the AmpliVue, BD Max System, and illumigene Molecular Assays for Detection of Group B Streptococcus in Antenatal Screening Specimens.

Shelley A Miller, Eszter Deak, Romney Humphries

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Comparison of the Panther Fusion and BD MAX Group BJournal of clinical microbiology · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019
    Article
  16. Multicenter Evaluation of NeuMoDx Group BJournal of clinical microbiology · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Shelley A MillerDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Eszter DeakDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California, USA.
Romney HumphriesDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA rhumphries@mednet.ucla.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The performances of the AmpliVue, BD Max, and illumigene group B Streptococcus (GBS) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) were compared to that of enriched culture for detection of GBS in antenatal screening specimens. Two hundred specimens were tested simultaneously with the NAATs, following 18 to 24 h of Lim broth enrichment; 15% of specimens were culture positive for GBS, whereas 31.5% were positive by at least one NAAT. All three NAATs were more sensitive (sensitivity, 90.9 to 100%) than culture (sensitivity, 53.6%).

Indexed as

DNA, BacterialFemaleHumansMolecular TypingNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousPrenatal DiagnosisStreptococcal InfectionsStreptococcus agalactiaeDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID25788551
PMCPMC4432075

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.