ArticleThe Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale2016
Review of 16S and ITS Direct Sequencing Results for Clinical Specimens Submitted to a Reference Laboratory.
Article in The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated 16S Sequencing Using an R-Based Analysis Module for Bacterial Identification.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Septic arthritis due toJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2021Article
- Molecular Identification of Cutaneous Alternariosis in a Renal Transplant Patient.Mycopathologia · 2017Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the performance of 16S and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region amplification and sequencing of rDNA from clinical specimens, for the respective detection and identification of bacterial and fungal pathogens. Direct rDNA amplification of 16S and ITS targets from clinical samples was performed over a 4-year period and reviewed. All specimens were from sterile sites and submitted to a reference laboratory for evaluation. Results of 16S and ITS were compared to histopathology, Gram and/or calcofluor stain microscopy results. A total of 277 16S tests were performed, with 64 (23%) positive for the presence of bacterial DNA. Identification of an organism was more likely in microscopy positive 16S samples 14/21 (67%), compared to 35/175 (20%) of microscopy negative samples. A total of 110 ITS tests were performed, with 14 (13%) positive. The yield of microscopy positive ITS samples, 9/44 (21%), was higher than microscopy negative samples 3/50 (6%). Given these findings, 16S and ITS are valuable options for culture negative specimens from sterile sites, particularly in the setting of positive microscopy findings. Where microscopy results are negative, the limited sensitivity of 16S and ITS in detecting and identifying an infectious agent needs to be considered.
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.