ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2016
Direct Screening of Blood by PCR and Pyrosequencing for a 16S rRNA Gene Target from Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit Patients Being Evaluated for Bloodstream Infection.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for Evaluating New Fever in Adult Patients in the ICU.Critical care medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Microbial product translocation and mortality in adults hospitalised with HIV-associated tuberculosis: a prospective observational cohort study.Research square · 2026Article
- Comparison of metagenomic next-generation sequencing and blood culture for diagnosis of bloodstream infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Identification and quantitation of clinically relevant microbes in patient samples: Comparison of three k-mer based classifiers for speed, accuracy, and sensitivity.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- Bacterial DNA patterns identified using paired-end Illumina sequencing of 16S rRNA genes from whole blood samples of septic patients in the emergency room and intensive care unit.BMC microbiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Here we compared the results of PCR/pyrosequencing to those of culture for detecting bacteria directly from blood. DNA was extracted from 1,130 blood samples from 913 patients suspected of bacteremia (enrollment criteria were physician-ordered blood culture and complete blood count [CBC]), and 102 controls (healthy blood donors). Real-time PCR assays for beta-globin and Universal 16S rRNA gene targets were performed on all 1,232 extracts. Specimens identified by Universal 16S rRNA gene PCR/pyrosequencing as containing staphylococci, streptococci, or enteric Gram-negative rods had target-specific PCR/pyrosequencing performed. Amplifiable beta-globin (melting temperature [Tm], 87.2°C ± 0.2°C) occurred in 99.1% (1,120/1,130) of patient extracts and 100% (102/102) of controls. Concordance between PCR/pyrosequencing and culture was 96.9% (1,085/1,120) for Universal 16S rRNA gene targets, with positivity rates of 9.4% (105/1,120) and 11.3% (126/1,120), respectively. Bacteria cultured included staphylococci (59/126, 46.8%), Gram-negative rods (34/126, 27%), streptococci (32/126, 25.4%), and a Gram-positive rod (1/126, 0.8%). All controls screened negative by PCR/pyrosequencing. Clinical performance characteristics (95% confidence interval [CI]) for Universal 16S rRNA gene PCR/pyrosequencing included sensitivity of 77.8% (69.5 to 84.7), specificity of 99.3% (98.6 to 99.7), positive predictive value (PPV) of 93.3% (86.8 to 97.3), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.2% (96.0 to 98.2). Bacteria were accurately identified in 77.8% (98/126) of culture-confirmed sepsis samples with Universal 16S PCR/pyrosequencing and in 76.4% (96/126) with follow-up target-specific PCR/pyrosequencing. The initial PCR/pyrosequencing took ∼5.5 h to complete or ∼7.5 h when including target-specific PCR/pyrosequencing compared to 27.9 ± 13.6 h for Gram stain or 81.6 ± 24.0 h for phenotypic identification. In summary, this molecular approach detected the causative bacteria in over three-quarters of all culture-confirmed cases of bacteremia directly from blood in significantly less time than standard culture but cannot be used to rule out infection.
Indexed as
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.