ArticleCurrent microbiology2015
Evaluation of the Pseudalert/Quanti-Tray MPN Test for the Rapid Enumeration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Swimming Pool and Spa Pool Waters.
Article in Current microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-time polymerase chain reaction assays for rapid detection and virulence evaluation of the environmental Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates.Molecular biology reports · 2019Article
- Propidium monoazide-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PMA-qPCR) assay for rapid detection of viable and viable but non-culturable (VBNC)Journal of environmental health science & engineering · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed the performance of a new most probable number test (Pseudalert/Quanti-Tray) for the enumeration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from swimming pool and spa pool waters by comparing it to the international and national membrane filtration-based culture methods for P. aeruginosa: ISO 16266:2006 and UK The Microbiology of Drinking Water-Part 8 (MoDW Part 8) which both use Pseudomonas CN agar. The comparison was based on the calculation of mean relative differences between the two methods conducted according to ISO 17994:2014. Using both routine pool water samples (149 from 8 laboratories) and artificially contaminated samples (309 from 7 laboratories), paired counts from each sample and enumeration method were analysed. For routine samples, there were insufficient data for a conclusive assessment, but the data do indicate at least equivalent performance of Pseudalert/Quanti-Tray to the reference methods. For the artificially contaminated samples, the data also did not result in a statistically conclusive assessment but did indicate potentially better performance of Pseudalert/Quanti-Tray. Combining the data from the routine samples and artificially contaminated samples resulted in an ISO 17994 outcome that the two methods were not statistically significantly different. Thus, the Pseudalert/Quanti-Tray method is an acceptable alternative to ISO 16266 and MoDW Part 8. The Pseudalert/Quanti-Tray method has the advantage in that it does not require confirmation testing, and of providing confirmed counts within 24-28 h incubation compared to 40-48 h or longer for the ISO 16266 and MoDW Part 8 methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26343050What 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.