ArticlePloS one2019
Evaluation of flow cytometry for the detection of bacteria in biological fluids.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolving Approaches to Bacterial Identification: A Review of Classical and Modern Techniques.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Feasibility of Flow Cytometric Bacterial Count in Synovial Fluid to Detect Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Fast-tracking fungal detection: a rapid flow cytometric method for the detection of yeasts in blood cultures.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Sheath-enhanced concentration and on-chip detection of bacteria from an extremely low-concentration level.Lab on a chip · 2025Article
- Application of Raman Spectroscopy in Non-Invasive Analysis of the Gut Microbiota and Its Impact on Gastrointestinal Health.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Recognition of environmental contaminant and pathogenic bacteria by means of redox potential methodology.MethodsX · 2024Article
- Flow cytometric detection of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in urine using fluorescently labelled enterocin K1.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Novel application of metagenomics for the strain-level detection of bacterial contaminants within non-sterile industrial products - a retrospective, real-time analysis.Microbial genomics · 2022Article
- Medium throughput protocol for genome-based quantification of intracellular mycobacterial loads and macrophage survival duringSTAR protocols · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Flow Cytometry for Cell Count and Detection of Bacteria in Biological Fluids.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Rapid high-resolution detection of colistin resistance in Gram-negative bacteria using flow cytometry: a comparison with broth microdilution, a commercial screening test and WGS.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2021Article
- Automated cell count in body fluids: a review.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2021Review
- Recent Developments in the Application of Flow Cytometry to Advance our Understanding of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Physiology and Pathogenesis.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesConventional microbiological procedures for the isolation of bacteria from biological fluids consist of culture on solid media and enrichment broth. However, these methods can delay the microbiological identification for up to 4 days. The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance of Sysmex UF500i (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) as a screening method for the detection of bacteria in different biological fluids in comparison with direct Gram staining and the conventional culture on solid media and enrichment broth.
methodsA total of 479 biological fluid samples were included in the study (180 ascitic, 131 amniotic, 56 synovial, 40 cerebrospinal, 36 pleural, 24 peritoneal, 9 bile and 3 pericardial fluids). All samples were processed by conventional culture methods and analyzed by flow cytometry. Direct Gram staining was performed in 339 samples. The amount of growth on culture was recorded for positive samples.
resultsBacterial and white blood cell count by flow cytometry was significantly higher among culture positive samples and samples with a positive direct Gram stain compared to culture negative samples. Bacterial count directly correlated with the amount of growth on culture (Kruskall-Wallis H χ2(3) = 11.577, p = 0.009). The best specificity (95%) for bacterial count to predict culture positivity was achieved applying a cut-off value of 240 bacteria/μL.
conclusionsBacterial and white blood cell counts obtained with flow cytometry correlate with culture results in biological fluids. Bacterial count can be used as a complementary method along with the direct Gram stain to promptly detect positive samples and perform other diagnostic techniques in order to accelerate the bacterial detection and identification.
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.