Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32535806›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2020

A comparison of GenomEra® GBS PCR and GeneXpert ® GBS PCR assays with culture of GBS performed with and without broth pre-enrichment.

S Y Nielsen, J K Møller, M R Khalil

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Rapid tests for detecting group B streptococcus colonization in pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Performance of the HiberGene Group B Streptococcus kit, a loop-mediated isothermal amplification-based assay for GBS screening during pregnancy.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Diagnostic Performance of Various Methodologies for Group B SFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

S Y NielsenDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. stine.yde.nielsen@rsyd.dk.
J K MøllerDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
M R KhalilDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was designed to compare the performance of GeneXpert® and GenomEra® group B streptococcus (GBS) PCR assays, held up against standard culture of GBS performed with and without broth pre-enrichment. In Denmark, the strategy for preventing early onset GBS infection (EOGBS) is risk factor based. Three hundred and sixty six women fulfilling one or more of the criteria for presence of risk factors for EOGBS were prospectively included. Rectovaginal swab samples were taken intrapartum and tested bed-site by the GenomEra® and the GeneXpert® GBS PCR assays and cultured at the microbiology laboratory using Granada agar plates with and without prior growth of sampling material in selective enrichment broth. Among 366 participants tested intrapartum, 99 were GBS-positive by culture, 95 by GenomEra, and 95 by GeneXpert. Compared with culture, the GenomEra and the GeneXpert performed with a sensitivity of 91.8% and 91.7% and a specificity of 98.1% and 97.3%, respectively. A combined reference standard was established by defining true positives as either culture-positive samples or culture-negative samples where both the GeneXpert and the GenomEra GBS PCR assays were positive. Using this, the sensitivity increased to 92.2% and the specificity to 99.6% for GenomEra and to 92.0% and 96.8% for GeneXpert. The use of selective broth enrichment found only three additional GBS culture-positive samples. The performance of the two PCR methods examined was very similar and close to the findings by culture, and both PCR assays are thus applicable as rapid intrapartum bed-site tests.

Indexed as

Prenatal DiagnosisAdolescentAdultCulture MediaDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPolymerase Chain ReactionPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityStreptococcal InfectionsStreptococcus agalactiaeVaginaCulture MediaEarly onsetEOGBSGBSGroup B streptococciIntrapartumPCRPoint-of-care testingPregnancyS. agalactiae

Identifiers

PMID32535806
PMCPMC7497322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.