ArticleSpringerPlus2016
Cultivation-independent approach for the direct detection of bacteria in human clinical specimens as a tool for analysing culture-negative samples: a prospective study.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Yield and Impact on Antimicrobial Management of 16S rRNA Testing of Clinical Specimens.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Bladder Microbiome in the Context of Urological Disorders-Is There a Biomarker Potential for Interstitial Cystitis?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Urinary Microbiome: Yin and Yang of the Urinary Tract.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Review
- Pathogen identification in culture-negative cerebrospinal fluid specimens of patients with purulent meningitis using next-generation sequencing technology.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2020Article
- Correct Identification ofFrontiers in medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Administration of empirical antibiotic therapy prior to microbiological diagnosis is thought to be associated the failure of subsequent bacterial growth in culture. The aim of this study was to detect bacterial pathogens via direct amplification and sequencing of the 16S rDNA gene in samples showing negative culture results as alternative diagnostic tools to troubleshoot difficult samples. Twenty-three (7.66 %) positive samples were detected, most of which were monomicrobial infections; 15 of the cases were identified as HAIs, 6 had catheter colonisation, and 2 had sample colonisation. The pathogens identified included Escherichia, Salmonella, Pseudomonas spp., Enterococcus spp. and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS). The most frequent infections were bacteraemia and urinary tract infection, but meningitis, warm infection and soft tissue infection were also documented. These findings emphasise the efficacy and usefulness of molecular diagnosis, thus 16S rDNA gene analysis is strongly indicated by HAIs diagnostics.
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.