ReviewMicroorganisms2021
Phage Amplification Assay for Detection of Mycobacterial Infection: A Review.
Review in Microorganisms, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in mycobacteriophage research: from lytic mechanisms to one health applications.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Phage Therapy: Application and Related Problems-A Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Mycobacteriophage Functionalized Magnetic Nanocrystal Clusters for Highly Sensitive and Rapid Detection ofJACS Au · 2025Article
- The gut virome and human health: From diversity to personalized medicine.Engineering microbiology · 2025Review
- Bacteriophage-based bioassays: an expected paradigm shift in microbial diagnostics.Future microbiology · 2024Review
- Utilisation of Actiphage in combination with ISJournal of veterinary research · 2023Article
- Mycobacteriophages in diagnosis and alternative treatment of mycobacterial infections.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Bacteriophages of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, their diversity, and potential therapeutic uses: a review.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Review
- A Review on Mycobacteriophages: From Classification to Applications.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Application of the Actiphage® Assay to Detect ViableFrontiers in veterinary science · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
An important prerequisite for the effective control, timely diagnosis, and successful treatment of mycobacterial infections in both humans and animals is a rapid, specific, and sensitive detection technique. Culture is still considered the gold standard in the detection of viable mycobacteria; however, mycobacteria are extremely fastidious and slow-growing microorganisms, and therefore cultivation requires a very long incubation period to obtain results. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) methods are also frequently used in the diagnosis of mycobacterial infections, providing faster and more accurate results, but are unable to distinguish between a viable and non-viable microorganism, which results in an inability to determine the success of tuberculosis patient treatment or to differentiate between an active and passive infection of animals. One suitable technique that overcomes these shortcomings mentioned is the phage amplification assay (PA). PA specifically detects viable mycobacteria present in a sample within 48 h using a lytic bacteriophage isolated from the environment. Nowadays, an alternative approach to PA, a commercial kit called Actiphage™, is also employed, providing the result within 6-8 h. In this approach, the bacteriophage is used to lyse mycobacterial cells present in the sample, and the released DNA is subsequently detected by PCR. The objective of this review is to summarize information based on the PA used for detection of mycobacteria significant in both human and veterinary medicine from various kinds of matrices.
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.