ArticlePloS one2019
Optimized detection of bacteria in bloodstream infections.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbial and host factors contribute to bloodstream infection in a pediatric acute lymphocytic leukemia mouse model.Heliyon · 2022Article
- The Microbiota in Hematologic Malignancies.Current treatment options in oncology · 2020Review
- Visual detection of bacterial DNA using activated paper stripe.Mikrochimica acta · 2019Article
- Clinical and microbiological perspectives on multidrug-resistant gram-negative pathogens in bloodstream infections.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
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
Bloodstream infection (BSI) is a life-threatening condition characterized by the presence of pathogens in the blood. It is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, and has to be treated promptly as mortality increases with every hour of delayed treatment. Therefore, rapid and sensitive diagnosis of BSI is essential. The routine diagnostic method for BSI is blood culture, which can only detect culturable pathogens and takes several days to obtain results. The 16S rRNA gene is present in all bacteria and is commonly used as a target for universal bacterial detection in rapid molecular assays such as PCR. However, molecular detection of the 16S gene is hampered by the large amount of human DNA found in blood samples, making diagnostic results aspecific and less sensitive. We have optimized the selection of PCR primers targeting the 16S rRNA gene to avoid cross-reaction with human DNA background. The developed method increases specificity and sensitivity for pathogen diagnosis, and provides rapid and accurate pathogen detection for rare bacterial DNA in the presence of abundant host DNA.
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.