ArticleBMC infectious diseases2020
Comparative study of Revogene GBS LB assay and GeneXpert GBS LB assay for the detection of group B Streptococcus in prenatal screening samples.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2020. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intrapartum Molecular Detection of Group BMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Tackling Infectious Diseases with Rapid Molecular Diagnosis and Innovative Prevention.Infectious disease reports · 2024Review
- Group B streptococci (GBS) strains evading molecular diagnostics showed novel chromosomal deletions encompassing the CAMP-factor (cfb) encoding gene.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Xpert GBS assay and Xpert GBS LB assay for detection of Streptococcus agalactiae.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGroup B Streptococcal (GBS) infections in the United States are a leading cause of meningitis and sepsis in newborns. The CDC therefore recommends GBS screening for all pregnant women at 35-37 weeks of gestation and administration of intrapartum prophylaxis (in those that tested positive) as an effective means of controlling disease transmission. Several FDA approved molecular diagnostic tests are available for rapid and accurate detection of GBS in antepartum women.
methodIn this study, we report a clinical comparison of the Xpert GBS LB assay and a novel FDA-cleared test, Revogene GBS LB assay. A total of 250 vaginal-rectal swabs from women undergoing prenatal screening were submitted to the University of Wisconsin's clinical microbiology laboratory for GBS testing.
resultsWe found 96.8% of samples were concordant between the two tests, while 3.2% were discordant with a positive percent agreement of 98.0% and a negative percent agreement of 96.5% between the Revogene GBS LB assay and the GeneXpert GBS LB assay.
conclusionOverall, we report that both assays perform well for the detection of GBS colonization in pregnant women.
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.