ArticleBioMedicine2015
The medical diagnostic approaches with phylogenetic analysis for rare Brucella spp. diagnosis in Taiwan.
Article in BioMedicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing of human Brucella melitensis isolates from Ulanqab of Inner Mongolia, China.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Head and neck cancer associated with increased rate of pulmonary tuberculosis in a population-based cohort study.Medicine · 2017Article
- Metformin Use Correlates with Reduced Risk of Gallstones in Diabetic Patients: A 12-Year Follow-up Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017Article
- Isolation & characterization of Brucella melitensis isolated from patients suspected for human brucellosis in India.The Indian journal of medical research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brucellosis is a bacterial zoonotic disease which can be easy to misdiagnose in clinical microbiology laboratories. In the present study, we have tried to improve the current clinical method for detecting Brucella spp. and its antibiotic characteristics. Our method begins with detecting the clinical isolate through traditional biochemical methods and automatic identification systems. Then, we move on to editing the sequence for BLAST allows us to compare 16s rRNA sequences with sequences from other species, allowing the gene level to be determined. Next, the phylogenetic analysis of multiple genetic loci is able to determine the evolutionary relationships between our bacteria strain and those from other locations. Finally, an anti-microbial susceptibility test hones in on the level of antibacterial activity that the bacteria displays. Employing these four steps in concert is extremely effective in identifying rare bacteria. Thus, when attempting to determine the identity of rare bacteria such as Brucella, utilizing these four steps from our research should be highly effective and ultimately prevent further identification errors and misdiagnoses. The standards we have suggested to identify rare bacteria strains is applicable not only to Brucella, but also to other rarely encountered bacteria.
Identifiers
What 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.