ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2017
Towards a Universal Molecular Microbiological Test.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconfigurable Multi-Channel Gas-Sensor Array for Complex Gas Mixture Identification and Fish Freshness Classification.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Application of VirCapSeq-VERT and BacCapSeq in the diagnosis of presumed and definitive neuroinfectious diseases.Journal of neurovirology · 2023Article
- Trends and Developments in the Detection of Pathogens in Central Nervous System Infections: A Bibliometric Study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- Consolidation of Clinical Microbiology Laboratories and Introduction of Transformative Technologies.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2020Review
- Diagnostic value and clinical application of next-generation sequencing for infections in immunosuppressed patients with corticosteroid therapy.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Infection in xenotransplantation: opportunities and challenges.Current opinion in organ transplantation · 2019Review
- Illumina sequencing of clinical samples for virus detection in a public health laboratory.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Rapid identification and phylogenetic classification of diverse bacterial pathogens in a multiplexed hybridization assay targeting ribosomal RNA.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Lowering the Barriers to Routine Whole-Genome Sequencing of Bacteria in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Shotgun Metagenomic Detection of Pathogens: a Micro-Comic Strip.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Mitigating Cross-Species Viral Infections in Xenotransplantation: Progress, Strategies, and Clinical Outlook.Cell transplantationReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The standard paradigm for microbiological testing is dependent on the presentation of a patient to a clinician. Tests are then requested based on differential diagnoses using the patient's symptoms as a guide. The era of high-throughput genomic methods has the potential to replace this model for the first time with what could be referred to as "hypothesis-free testing." This approach utilizes one of a variety of methodologies to obtain a sequence from potentially any nucleic acid in a clinical sample, without prior knowledge of its content. We discuss the advantages of such an approach and the challenges in making this a reality.
Indexed as
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.