Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27121506›Full record

ArticleAnnals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials2016

Comparison of molecular detection methods for pertussis in children during a state-wide outbreak.

X Qin, D M Zerr, M P Kronman, A L Adler, J E Berry, S Rich, A M Buccat, M Xu, J A Englund

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Clinical-epidemiological study ofAnales de pediatria · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

X QinMicrobiology Laboratory, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA. xuan.qin@seattlechildrens.org.
D M ZerrDivision of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
M P KronmanDivision of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
A L AdlerDivision of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
J E BerryMicrobiology Laboratory, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.
S RichMicrobiology Laboratory, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.
A M BuccatMicrobiology Laboratory, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.
M XuMicrobiology Laboratory, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.
J A EnglundDivision of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A state-wide pertussis outbreak occurred in Washington during the winter-spring months of 2012, concurrent with respiratory viral season. We compared performance characteristics of a laboratory-developed pertussis PCR (LD-PCR for Bordetella pertussis, Bordetella parapertussis, and Bordetella holmesii) and rapid multiplex PCR (RM-PCR) for respiratory viruses (FilmArray™, BioFire, B. pertussis data unblinded following FDA approval post outbreak). We analyzed three cohorts of patients using physician testing orders as a proxy for clinical suspicion for pertussis or respiratory viruses: Cohort 1, tested by LD-PCR for pertussis pathogens only by nasopharyngeal swab; Cohort 2, by RM-PCR for respiratory viruses only by mid-nasal turbinate swab; and Cohort 3, by both methods. B. pertussis was detected in a total of 25 of the 490 patients in Cohort 3 in which LD-PCR detected 20/25 (80 %) cases and the RM-PCR detected 24/25 (96 %; p = 0.2). Pertussis pathogens were detected in 21/584 (3.6 %) of samples from Cohort 1 where clinicians had a relatively strong suspicion for pertussis. In contrast, B. pertussis was detected in only 4/3071 (0.1 %) specimens from Cohort 2 where suspicion for pertussis was lower (p < 0.001 for comparison with Cohort 1). In summary, the two laboratory methods were comparable for the detection of B. pertussis.

Indexed as

AdolescentBordetella parapertussisBordetella pertussisChildChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesDisease OutbreaksDNA, BacterialFemaleHumansInfantMaleMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionNasopharynxPolymerase Chain ReactionRetrospective StudiesDNA, BacterialBordetella pertussisRapid diagnosisRespiratory viruses

Identifiers

PMID27121506
PMCPMC4847268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.