Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26261822›Full record

ReviewAdvanced biomedical research2015

Conventional, molecular methods and biomarkers molecules in detection of septicemia.

Mohammad Reza Arabestani, Sahar Rastiany, Sima Kazemi, Seyed Masoud Mousavi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advanced biomedical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Mohammad Reza ArabestaniBrucellosis Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran ; Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Sahar RastianyDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Sima KazemiDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Seyed Masoud MousaviDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients worldwide and based on studies, 30-40% of all cases of severe sepsis and septic shock results from the blood stream infections (BSIs). Identifying of the disease, performing laboratory tests, and consequently treatment are factors that required for optimum management of BSIs. In addition, applying precise and immediate identification of the etiologic agent is a prerequisite for specific antibiotic therapy of pathogen and thereby decreasing mortality rates. The diagnosis of sepsis is difficult because clinical signs of sepsis often overlap with other noninfectious cases of systemic inflammation. BSIs are usually diagnosed by performing a series of techniques such as blood cultures, polymerase chain reaction-based methods, and biomarkers of sepsis. Extremely time-consuming even to take up to several days is a major limitation of conventional methods. In addition, yielding false-negative results due to fastidious and slow-growing microorganisms and also in case of antibiotic pretreated samples are other limitations. In comparison, molecular methods are capable of examining a blood sample obtained from suspicious patient with BSI and gave the all required information to prescribing antimicrobial therapy for detected bacterial or fungal infections immediately. Because of an emergency of sepsis, new methods are being developed. In this review, we discussed about the most important sepsis diagnostic methods and numbered the advantage and disadvantage of the methods in detail.

Indexed as

Biomarkersblood-culturemolecular methodssepsis

Identifiers

PMID26261822
PMCPMC4513309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.