ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2019
Detailed Evaluation of Data Analysis Tools for Subtyping of Bacterial Isolates Based on Whole Genome Sequencing:
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ribotyping for Accurate Identification of Infectious Bacteria in Animal-Derived Foods and Laboratory Samples: Implications for Human Health.Journal of tropical medicine · 2026Review
- Surveillance of carbapenem-resistant organisms using next-generation sequencing.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Source Attribution of Human Campylobacteriosis Using Whole-Genome Sequencing Data and Network Analysis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Using Neisseria meningitidis genomic diversity to inform outbreak strain identification.PLoS pathogens · 2021Article
- A Hopeful Sea-Monster: A Very Large Homologous Recombination Event Impacting the Core Genome of the Marine PathogenFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whole genome sequencing is increasingly recognized as the most informative approach for characterization of bacterial isolates. Success of the routine use of this technology in public health laboratories depends on the availability of well-characterized and verified data analysis methods. However, multiple subtyping workflows are now often being used for a single organism, and differences between them are not always well described. Moreover, methodologies for comparison of subtyping workflows, and assessment of their performance are only beginning to emerge. Current work focuses on the detailed comparison of WGS-based subtyping workflows and evaluation of their suitability for the organism and the research context in question. We evaluated the performance of pipelines used for subtyping of
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.