ArticleMicrobial genomics2018
Are commercial providers a viable option for clinical bacterial sequencing?
Article in Microbial genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of economic evaluations of whole-genome sequencing for the surveillance of bacterial pathogens.Microbial genomics · 2023Pooled it
- The challenges of the genome-based identification of antifungal resistance in the clinical routine.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Changing the paradigm for hospital outbreak detection by leading with genomic surveillance of nosocomial pathogens.Microbiology (Reading, England) · 2018Article
- Lowering the Barriers to Routine Whole-Genome Sequencing of Bacteria in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bacterial whole-genome sequencing in the clinical setting has the potential to bring major improvements to infection control and clinical practice. Sequencing instruments are not currently available in the majority of routine microbiology laboratories worldwide, but an alternative is to use external sequencing providers. To foster discussion around this we investigated whether send-out services were a viable option. Four providers offering MiSeq sequencing were selected based on cost and evaluated based on the service provided and sequence data quality. DNA was prepared from five methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates, four of which were investigated during a previously published outbreak in the UK together with a reference MRSA isolate (ST22 HO 5096 0412). Cost of sequencing per isolate ranged from £155 to £342 and turnaround times from DNA postage to arrival of sequence data ranged from 12 to 63 days. Comparison of commercially generated genomes against the original sequence data demonstrated very high concordance, with no more than one single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) difference on core genome mapping between the original sequences and the new sequence for all four providers. Multilocus sequence type could not be assigned based on assembly for the two cheapest sequence providers due to fragmented assemblies probably caused by a lower output of sequence data per isolate. Our results indicate that external providers returned highly accurate genome data, but that improvements are required in turnaround time to make this a viable option for use in clinical practice.
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.