Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27213772›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Microbial Hazards in Bathing Waters: A Comparative Study.

Christelle Schang, Rebekah Henry, Peter A Kolotelo, Toby Prosser, Nick Crosbie, Trish Grant, Darren Cottam, Peter O'Brien, Scott Coutts, Ana Deletic and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. AssessingScience advances · 2025
    Article
  2. The Effect ofToxins · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

11 authors.

Christelle SchangEnvironmental and Public Health Microbiology Laboratory (EPHM Lab), Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Rebekah HenryEnvironmental and Public Health Microbiology Laboratory (EPHM Lab), Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Peter A KoloteloEnvironmental and Public Health Microbiology Laboratory (EPHM Lab), Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Toby ProsserMelbourne Water, Docklands, Victoria, Australia.
Nick CrosbieMelbourne Water, Docklands, Victoria, Australia.
Trish GrantMelbourne Water, Docklands, Victoria, Australia.
Darren CottamEnvironment Protection Authority Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Peter O'BrienMornington Peninsula Shire, Rosebud, Victoria, Australia.
Scott CouttsMicromon, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Ana DeleticEnvironmental and Public Health Microbiology Laboratory (EPHM Lab), Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
David T McCarthyEnvironmental and Public Health Microbiology Laboratory (EPHM Lab), Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recreational water quality is commonly monitored by means of culture based faecal indicator organism (FIOs) assays. However, these methods are costly and time-consuming; a serious disadvantage when combined with issues such as non-specificity and user bias. New culture and molecular methods have been developed to counter these drawbacks. This study compared industry-standard IDEXX methods (Colilert and Enterolert) with three alternative approaches: 1) TECTA™ system for E. coli and enterococci; 2) US EPA's 1611 method (qPCR based enterococci enumeration); and 3) Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). Water samples (233) were collected from riverine, estuarine and marine environments over the 2014-2015 summer period and analysed by the four methods. The results demonstrated that E. coli and coliform densities, inferred by the IDEXX system, correlated strongly with the TECTA™ system. The TECTA™ system had further advantages in faster turnaround times (~12 hrs from sample receipt to result compared to 24 hrs); no staff time required for interpretation and less user bias (results are automatically calculated, compared to subjective colorimetric decisions). The US EPA Method 1611 qPCR method also showed significant correlation with the IDEXX enterococci method; but had significant disadvantages such as highly technical analysis and higher operational costs (330% of IDEXX). The NGS method demonstrated statistically significant correlations between IDEXX and the proportions of sequences belonging to FIOs, Enterobacteriaceae, and Enterococcaceae. While costs (3,000% of IDEXX) and analysis time (300% of IDEXX) were found to be significant drawbacks of NGS, rapid technological advances in this field will soon see it widely adopted.

Indexed as

Bacterial LoadBacteriological TechniquesEnterococcusEnvironmental MonitoringEscherichia coliFresh WaterHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID27213772
PMCPMC4877094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.