Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32938735›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2020

Gram Staining: a Comparison of Two Automated Systems and Manual Staining.

Neele J Froböse, Sara Bjedov, Franziska Schuler, Barbara C Kahl, Stefanie Kampmeier, Frieder Schaumburg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Comparison of Automated Point-of-Care Gram Stainer (PoCGSDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Pathogenetic characterization of aFrontiers in pediatrics · 2023
    Article
  15. Vaginal Carriage of Group BMicrobiology insights · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. EngineeringSynthetic and systems biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Neele J Froböse *Institute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Sara Bjedov *Institute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Franziska SchulerInstitute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Barbara C KahlInstitute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5155-3383
Stefanie KampmeierInstitute of Hygiene, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Frieder SchaumburgInstitute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany frieder.schaumburg@ukmuenster.de.ORCID 0000-0002-9168-9290

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various Gram staining automated systems are available to accelerate and standardize the staining process, but a systematic comparison of different systems is largely lacking. The objective of this study was to evaluate two devices in comparison to manual Gram staining. Clinical samples (

Indexed as

BacteriaFungiGermanyHumansStaining and Labelingautomated systemscoloring agentsGram stainmicroscopy

Identifiers

PMID32938735
PMCPMC7685888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.