ArticleCureus2016
Evaluation of Different Phenotypic Techniques for the Detection of Slime Produced by Bacteria Isolated from Clinical Specimens.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Emergence of heteroresistance to carbapenems in Gram-negative clinical isolates from two Egyptian hospitals.BMC microbiology · 2024Article
- Computational and experimental strategies for combating MBLSaudi journal of biological sciences · 2024Article
- New-generation biofilm effective antimicrobial peptides and a real-time anti-biofilm activity assay: CoMIC.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Alpha-amyrin as an anti-biofilm agent against methicillin-resistant and vancomycin-intermediateHeliyon · 2023Article
- Molecular Identification of Bacteria Isolated from MarketedLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Assessment of the biofilm-forming ability on solid surfaces of periprosthetic infection-associated pathogens.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelled
introductionMicroorganisms use various strategies for their survival in both the environment and in humans. Slime production by bacteria is one such mechanism by which microbes colonize on the indwelling prosthetic devices and form biofilms. Infections caused by such microorganisms are difficult to treat as the biofilm acts as a shield and protects microbes against antimicrobial agents. There are several methods for the detection of slime produced by bacteria, and they include both phenotypic and molecular methods. The present study evaluated the Congo red agar/broth method, Christensen's method, dye elution technique, and the latex agglutination method for the demonstration of slime production by different bacterial clinical isolates. MATERIALS &
methodsWe collected 151 bacterial clinical isolates (both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria) from various specimens and tested them for the production of slime both by qualitative and quantitative tests. Congo red agar/broth method, Christensen's method, dye elution technique, and latex agglutination methods were used for detecting the slime or slime-like substance.
resultsWe found that 103 (68.2%) strains were positive for slime production by Congo red agar/broth method. It was found that 18 (94.7%) strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae, 21 (84.0%) strains of S aureus and 25 (65.7%) strains of coagulase-negative Staphylococci were positive for slime or slime-like substances by Congo red agar/broth method. A total of 41.0% of the strains positive by Christensen's method and 15.2% of the strains by dye elution technique were found to be more adherent organisms and that have the potential to form biofilms. Only the gram-positive organisms showed nonspecific agglutination with latex suspension.
conclusionAmong the various phenotypic methods compared in this study the Congo red agar/broth method is a simple, economical, sensitive, and specific method that can be used by clinical microbiology laboratories for screening the strains for the presence of slime or slime-like substances.
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.