ArticleEndoscopy international open2018
Prospective study of the feasibility of point-of-care testing strategy for carbapenem-resistant organism detection.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preprocedural screening for multidrug-resistant organisms in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: an international, multicentre, cross-sectional observational study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- A Comparative Study of the Microbiological Efficacy of Polymyxin B on Different Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Infections.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Leapfrogging laboratories: the promise and pitfalls of high-tech solutions for antimicrobial resistance surveillance in low-income settings.BMJ global health · 2020Review
- Active Surveillance of Carbapenemase-Producing Organisms (CPO) Colonization With Xpert Carba-R Assay Plus Positive Patient Isolation Proves to Be Effective in CPO Containment.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsIn an investigator-initiated, prospective study, we evaluated the feasibility of a five-gene sequence point-of-care (POC) testing strategy (Xpert CARBA-R Assay, Cepheid Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), compared to reference laboratory PCR (48 - 72 hours turnaround time, two gene sequences), in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and in a hospital outbreak investigation.
methodsAfter informed consent, patients undergoing ERCP (September 2015 - April 2016, n = 191) at Mayo Clinic and potential hospital contacts (n = 9) of an index carbapenem-resistant organism (CRO)-positive inpatient were included. Two rectal swabs, one each for reference and POC assays were obtained. The Xpert CARBA-R Assay enables qualitative rapid detection of five beta-lactamase gene sequences associated with carbapenem-non-susceptibility in Gram-negative bacteria. Feasibility parameters (specimen processing and assay run time, ease of use) and percent agreement between the tests were calculated using JMP Pro11 (SAS Corp, Cary, NC, USA).
resultsMean age was 62 ± 15 years; 108 (54 %) were male. Both tests were successfully performed in all patients. The POC test was rated by endoscopy nurses as easy/very easy to conduct in 193 patients (97 %); median assay run time and median time for specimen collection and processing were 55 minutes (interquartile range IQR: 53 - 55 minutes) and 3 minutes (IQR: 3 - 6 minutes), respectively. In 200/201 (99.5 %) tests, there was agreement between the POC and reference PCR.
conclusionsThe more comprehensive POC CRO testing of patients in the endoscopy suite is feasible and results are available in < 1 hour. This strategy may enable rapid risk stratification of duodenoscope exposure to CRO and potentially improve operational efficiency and decrease costs.
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.