Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28659318›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2017

Reliable Detection of Group B Streptococcus in the Clinical Laboratory.

Manuel Rosa-Fraile, Barbara Spellerberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. CAMP-negative group B Streptococcus in pregnant women: molecular and clinical features with implications for diagnostics and neonatal management.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Rapid detection ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  7. Journal of medical microbiology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Do NAAT-Based Methods Increase the Diagnostic Sensitivity ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    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

2 authors.

Manuel Rosa-FraileUniversity Hospital Virgen de las Nieves, Microbiology Service, Emeritus, Granada, Spain mdelarosa@outlook.es.
Barbara SpellerbergInstitut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Hygiene, Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Ulm, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Group B streptococcus (GBS) is a leading cause of invasive neonatal infections and a significant pathogen in immunocompromised adults. Screening to detect GBS colonization in pregnant women determines the need for antibiotic prophylaxis in that pregnancy. Efficient determination of the GBS colonization status of pregnant women is crucial. Methods that maximize the probability of GBS recovery are needed. The availability of technologies such as matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS), molecular techniques, and chromogenic culture media, including Granada-type media, have changed the scenario for GBS detection and identification. This review presents and evaluates novel diagnostic tools, as well as classic identification techniques, for GBS species determination.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisBacterial Typing TechniquesClinical Laboratory ServicesFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousStreptococcal InfectionsStreptococcus agalactiaeGBSgroup B streptococcus

Identifiers

PMID28659318
PMCPMC5648696

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.