ArticleVirulence2018
Towards clinical application of non-invasive imaging to detect bacterial infections.
Article in Virulence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiological and Imaging Evidence in the Diagnosis and Management of Microbial Infections: An Update.Cureus · 2023Review
- Fascial space odontogenic infections: Ultrasonography as an alternative to magnetic resonance imaging.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Recent Advances in the Use of Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles for the Diagnosis of Bacterial Infections.International journal of nanomedicine · 2021Review
- Preclinical Models and Methodologies for Monitoring Staphylococcus aureus Infections Using Noninvasive Optical Imaging.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2020Article
- Differentiation of Myositis-Induced Models of Bacterial Infection and Inflammation with TTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2019Article
- Multimodal Tracking of ControlledACS infectious diseases · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In vivo imaging technologies offer a great potential for the diagnosis of difficult-to-treat bacterial infections. A major limitation of conventional imaging modalities is the lack of specificity to distinguish the site of bacterial infection from sterile inflammation. Targeted approaches like antibiotics linked to imaging tracers for detection of various bacterial pathogens or species-specific antibodies combined with anatomical imaging modalities are currently being evaluated to overcome this problem. Considering the recent progress in optical and targeted imaging that may accelerate preclinical development programs, clinical implementation of in vivo imaging modalities to detect bacterial infection foci becomes realistic in the future.
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.