Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29348433›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Speciation of common Gram-negative pathogens using a highly multiplexed high resolution melt curve assay.

Thomas Edwards, Shugo Sasaki, Christopher Williams, Glyn Hobbs, Nicholas A Feasey, Katie Evans, Emily R Adams

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas EdwardsResearch Centre for Drugs and Diagnostics, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK. Thomas.Edwards@lstmed.ac.uk.
Shugo SasakiResearch Centre for Drugs and Diagnostics, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Christopher WilliamsResearch Centre for Drugs and Diagnostics, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Glyn HobbsSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.
Nicholas A FeaseyMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, Blantyre, Malawi.
Katie EvansSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.
Emily R AdamsResearch Centre for Drugs and Diagnostics, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBLiverpool John Moores University · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_15040Medical Research Council MC_PC_16052
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The identification of the bacterial species responsible for an infection remains an important step for the selection of antimicrobial therapy. Gram-negative bacteria are an important source of hospital and community acquired infections and frequently antimicrobial resistant. Speciation of bacteria is typically carried out by biochemical profiling of organisms isolated from clinical specimens, which is time consuming and delays the initiation of tailored treatment. Whilst molecular methods such as PCR have been used, they often struggle with the challenge of detecting and discriminating a wide range of targets. High resolution melt analysis is an end-point qPCR detection method that provides greater multiplexing capability than probe based methods. Here we report the design of a high resolution melt analysis assay for the identification of six common Gram-negative pathogens; Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella Sp, and Acinetobacter baumannii, and a generic Gram-negative specific 16S rRNA control. The assay was evaluated using a well characterised collection of 113 clinically isolated Gram-negative bacteria. The agreement between the HRM assay and the reference test of PCR and sequencing was 98.2% (Kappa 0.96); the overall sensitivity and specificity of the assay was 97.1% (95% CI: 90.1-99.7%) and 100% (95% CI: 91.78-100%) respectively.

Indexed as

Multiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionCoinfectionGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Analysis, RNARNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID29348433
PMCPMC5773611
OpenAlexW2784150158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.