ArticleJournal of intensive care2015
Prospective comparison of a PCR assay and a microbiological culture technique for identification of pathogens from blood and non-blood samples in septic patients.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive analysis of microorganisms in severe septic patients in the intensive care unit by mNGS and microbial culture.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- The Impact of the FilmArray-Based Detection of Microbial Pathogens from Positive Blood Culture Vials on the Time to Optimal Antimicrobial Regimen in Intensive Care Units of the Helios University Clinic Wuppertal, Germany.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- In search of a primary outcome for community-based newborn infection trials in Eastern Uganda: a nested cohort study within the BabyGel pilot trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2019Article
- Sepsis: in search of cure.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMolecular amplification techniques are suggested to be a useful adjunct in early detection of pathogens in septic patients. The aim was to study the feasibility of a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay compared to the standard microbiological culture (MC) technique in identification of pathogenic microorganisms from blood and non-blood samples in septic patients.
methodsSamples for pathogen identification were taken during febrile septic episodes (SE) in 54 patients with sepsis and analyzed using both MC and PCR. Semi-automated multiplex PCR, provided by Philips Medical Systems, was able to detect nine different pathogens. The accuracy of pathogen identification using PCR vs. MC as well as the time-saving effect of PCR on the potential decision-making process for antimicrobial therapy was evaluated.
resultsIn a total of 258 samples taken during 87 SE, both methods yielded more pathogens from the non-blood than blood samples (87 % vs. 45 %; p = 0.002). PCR identified more pathogens than MC in the blood samples (98 vs. 21; p < 0.0001), but not in other body fluids. In 35 SE, the potential decision on appropriate antimicrobial therapy based on PCR results could have been made 50 (median; interquartile range 35-87) hours earlier than decisions based on standard MC.
conclusionsIn septic patients, multiplex PCR identified more pathogenic microorganisms isolated from the blood samples than the standard MC technique. In the non-blood samples, PCR was comparable to that of MC.
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.