Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28455579›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2017

[New microbiological techniques].

S Schubert, A Wieser, G Bonkat

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

S SchubertMax von Pettenkofer-Institut für Hygiene und Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistr. 17, 81377, München, Deutschland. schubert@med.uni-muenchen.de.
A WieserMax von Pettenkofer-Institut für Hygiene und Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistr. 17, 81377, München, Deutschland.
G Bonkatalta uro AG, Centralbahnplatz 6, 4051, Basel, Schweiz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbiological diagnostic procedures have changed rapidly in recent years. This is especially true in the field of molecular diagnostics. Classical culture-based techniques are still the gold standard in many areas; however, they are already complemented by automated and also molecular techniques to guarantee faster and better quality results. The most commonly used techniques include real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) based systems and nucleic acid hybridization. These procedures are used most powerfully from direct patient samples or in assays to detect the presence of nonculturable or fastidious organisms. Further techniques such as DNA sequencing are not yet used routinely for urological samples and can be considered experimental. However, in conjunction with dropping prices and further technical developments, these techniques promise to be used much more in the near future. Regarding bacterial identification from culture, mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) has become the technique of choice in recent years especially in Europe. It has tremendously shortened the time to result. This is now going to be extended to antibiotic susceptibility testing. This is of paramount importance in view of ever rising antimicrobial resistance rates. Techniques described in this review offer a faster and better microbiological diagnosis. Such continuous improvements are critical especially in times of cost pressure and rising antimicrobial resistance rates. It is in our interest to provide the best possible care for patients and in this regard a good and effective communication between the laboratory and the clinician is of vital importance.

Indexed as

Bacterial Typing TechniquesGenetic TestingHumansIn Situ HybridizationMicrobiological TechniquesMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesSkin Diseases, BacterialSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationHybridizationMass spectrometryPolymerase chain reactionSequencingUrinary tract infection

Identifiers

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.