Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25809969›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015

Evaluation of Level of Agreement in Bordetella Species Identification in Three U.S. Laboratories during a Period of Increased Pertussis.

Brunilís Burgos-Rivera, Adria D Lee, Katherine E Bowden, Amanda E Faulkner, Brent L Seaton, Bryndon D Lembke, Charles P Cartwright, Stacey W Martin, M Lucia Tondella

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. StrengtheningJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evaluation of Commercial Assays for Single-Point Diagnosis of Pertussis in the US.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Laboratory Diagnosis of Pertussis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2015
    Review
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Brunilís Burgos-RiveraCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia, USA wri2@cdc.gov.
Adria D LeeCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Katherine E BowdenCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Amanda E FaulknerCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Brent L SeatonFocus Diagnostics, Cypress, California, USA.
Bryndon D LembkeLaboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Minnetonka, Minnesota, USA.
Charles P CartwrightLaboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Minnetonka, Minnesota, USA.
Stacey W MartinCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
M Lucia TondellaCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USLabCorp (United States) · USUnited States Department of Health and Human Services · USMicro Focus (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While PCR is the most common method used for detecting Bordetella pertussis in the United States, most laboratories use insertion sequence 481 (IS481), which is not specific for B. pertussis; therefore, the relative contribution of other Bordetella species is not understood. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the proportion of other Bordetella species misidentified as B. pertussis during a period of increased pertussis incidence, determine the level of agreement in Bordetella species detection between U.S. commercial laboratories and the CDC, and assess the relative diagnostic sensitivity of CDC's PCR assay when using a different PCR master mix. Specimens collected between May 2012 and May 2013 were tested at two U.S. commercial laboratories for B. pertussis and B. parapertussis detection. Every fifth specimen positive for IS481 and/or IS1001 with cycle threshold (CT) values of ≤35 was sent to CDC for PCR testing that identifies Bordetella species. Specimens with indeterminate or negative results in the CDC PCR were tested using an alternate PCR master mix. Of 755 specimens, there was agreement in species identification for 83.4% (n = 630). Of the specimens with different identifications (n = 125), 79.2% (n = 99) were identified as indeterminate B. pertussis at CDC. Overall, 0.66% (n = 5) of the specimens were identified as B. holmesii or B. bronchiseptica at CDC. Of 115 specimens with indeterminate or negative results, 46.1% (n = 53) were B. pertussis positive when tested by an alternate master mix, suggesting a possible increase in assay sensitivity. This study demonstrates good agreement between the two U.S. commercial laboratories and CDC and little misidentification of Bordetella species during the 2012 U.S. epidemic.

Indexed as

BordetellaBordetella InfectionsHumansLaboratoriesMolecular TypingPolymerase Chain ReactionUnited StatesWhooping Cough

Identifiers

PMID25809969
PMCPMC4432061
OpenAlexW2153266474

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.