ArticlePloS one2016
Evaluation of the Septifast MGrade Test on Standard Care Wards--A Cohort Study.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance and economic evaluation of the molecular detection of pathogens for patients with severe infections: the EVAMICA open-label, cluster-randomised, interventional crossover trial.Intensive care medicine · 2017Trial
- Rapid molecular assays versus blood culture for bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- A high leukocyte count and administration of hydrocortisone hamper PCR-based diagnostics for bloodstream infections.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Article
- Machine learning for fast identification of bacteraemia in SIRS patients treated on standard care wards: a cohort study.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Emerging Technologies for Molecular Diagnosis of Sepsis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2018Review
- 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)D vitamin D fails to predict sepsis and mortality in a prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe immediate need for appropriate antimicrobial therapy in septic patients requires the detection of the causative pathogen in a timely and reliable manner. In this study, the real-time PCR Septifast MGrade test was evaluated in adult patients meeting the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria that were treated at standard care wards.
methodsPatients with clinical suspected infection, drawn blood cultures (BC), the Septifast M(Grade) test (SF) and sepsis biomarkers were prospectively screened for fulfillment of SIRS criteria and evaluated using the criteria of the European Centre of Disease Control (ECDC) for infection point prevalence studies.
resultsIn total, 220 patients with SIRS were prospectively enrolled, including 56 patients with detection of bacteria in the blood (incidence: 25.5%). BC analysis resulted in 75.0% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, CI: 61.6%- 85.6%) with 97.6% specificity (CI: 93.9%- 99.3%) for detecting bacteria in the blood. In comparison to BC, SF presented with 80.4% sensitivity (CI: 67.6%- 89.8%) and with 97.6% specificity (CI: 93.9%- 99.3%). BC and SF analysis yielded comparable ROC-AUCs (0.86, 0.89), which did not differ significantly (p = 0.558). A trend of a shorter time-to-positivity of BC analysis was not seen in bacteremic patients with a positive SF test than those with a negative test result. Sepsis biomarkers, including PCT, IL-6 or CRP, did not help to explain discordant test results for BC and SF.
conclusionSince negative results do not exclude bacteremia, the Septifast M(Grade) test is not suited to replacing BC, but it is a valuable tool with which to complement BC for faster detection of pathogens.
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.