For Rapid Molecular Detection, Why Not a Whole Genome Approach?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Validating the AMRFinder Tool and Resistance Gene Database by Using Antimicrobial Resistance Genotype-Phenotype Correlations in a Collection of Isolates.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019
   Article
2. Challenges in fecal donor selection and screening for fecal microbiota transplantation: A review.Gut microbes · 2017
   Review
3. Reply to Lesho and Clifford.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2016
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Reply to Lesho and Clifford.2016
• Comment on
  Rapid Molecular Diagnostics, Antibiotic Treatment Decisions, and Developing Approaches to Inform Empiric Therapy: PRIMERS I and II.2016

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as