ArticleBMC microbiology2021
Pre-processing tissue specimens with a tissue homogenizer: clinical and microbiological evaluation.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved Microbiological Diagnosis of Bone and Joint Infections Using Mechanical Bead-Milling Extraction of Bone Specimens with the Ultra-TurraxDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Recommendations for microbiological sampling in infected hard-to-heal wounds: an Italian association for cutaneous ulcers (AIUC) perspective.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Optimization of lung tissue pre-treatment by bead homogenization for subsequent culturomics.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Rapid high-throughput processing of tissue samples for microbiological diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections using bead-beating homogenization.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of two different semi-automated homogenization techniques in microbiological diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: disperser vs. bead milling method.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- The State of Microbiology Diagnostic of Prosthetic Joint Infection in Europe: An In-Depth Survey Among Clinical Microbiologists.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
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
backgroundTissues are valuable specimens in diagnostic microbiology because they are often obtained by invasive methods, and effort should thus be taken to maximize microbiological yield. The objective of this study was to evaluate the added value of using tissue pre-processing (tissue homogenizer instrument gentleMACS Dissociator) in detecting microorganisms responsible for infections.
methodsWe included 104 randomly collected tissue samples, 41 (39.4 %) bones and 63 (60.6 %) soft tissues, many of those (42/104 (40.4 %)) were of periprosthetic origins. We compared the agreement between pre-processing tissues using tissue homogenizer with routine microbiology diagnostic procedure, and we calculated the performance of these methods when clinical infections were used as reference standard.
resultsThere was no significant difference between the two methods (McNemar test, p = 0.3). Among the positive culture using both methods (n = 62), 61 (98.4 %) showed at least one similar microorganism. Exactly similar microorganisms were found in 42/62 (67.7 %) of the samples. From the included tissues, 55/ 104 (52.9 %) were deemed as infected. We found that the sensitivity of homogenized tissue procedure was lower (83.6 %) than when tissue was processed using tissue homogenizer (89.1 %). Sub-analysis on periprosthetic tissues and soft or bone tissues showed comparable results.
conclusionsThe added value of GentleMACS Dissociator tissue homogenizer is limited in comparison to routine tissue processing.
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.