ArticleBMC microbiology2020
Repeated centrifuging and washing concentrates bacterial samples in peritoneal dialysis for optimal culture: an original article.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2020. 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.
- Article
- Antifungal Associations with a Polyelectrolyte Promote Significant Reduction of Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations against Opportunistic Candida spp. Strains.Current microbiology · 2024Article
- Enzymatic Activity Profiling Using an Ultrasensitive Array of Chemiluminescent Probes for Bacterial Classification and Characterization.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2024Article
- Persistent peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: a comphrenesive review of recurrent, relapsing, refractory, and repeat peritonitis.International urology and nephrology · 2024Review
- The Direct Semi-Quantitative Detection of 18 Pathogens and Simultaneous Screening for Nine Resistance Genes in Clinical Urine Samples by a High-Throughput Multiplex Genetic Detection System.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBacterial cultures allow the identification of infectious disease pathogens. However, obtaining the results of conventional culture methods is time-consuming, taking at least two days. A more efficient alternative is the use of concentrated bacterial samples to accelerate culture growth. Our study focuses on the development of a high-yield sample concentrating technique.
resultsA total of 71 paired samples were obtained from patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD). The peritoneal dialysates were repeat-centrifuged and then washed with saline, namely the centrifuging and washing method (C&W method). The concentrated samples were Gram-stained and inoculated into culture plates. The equivalent unprocessed dialysates were cultured as the reference method. The times until culture results for the two methods were compared. The reference method yielded no positive Gram stain results, but the C&W method immediately gave positive Gram stain results for 28 samples (p < 0.001). The culture-negative rate was lower in the C&W method (5/71) than in the reference method (13/71) (p = 0.044). The average time for bacterial identification achieved with the C&W method (22.0 h) was shorter compared to using the reference method (72.5 h) (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe C&W method successfully concentrated bacterial samples and superseded blood culture bottles for developing adequate bacterial cultures. The C&W method may decrease the culture report time, thus improving the treatment of infectious diseases.
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.