Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34637486›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2021

A retrospective observational study of the impact of 16s and 18s ribosomal RNA PCR on antimicrobial treatment over seven years: A tertiary hospital experience.

TeeKeat Teoh, Rachel McNamara, James Powell, Nuala H O'Connell, Colum P Dunne

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impact of direct from clinical sample sequencing assays for infectious diseases diagnostics: A single-centre retrospective cohort study.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

TeeKeat TeohDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, University Limerick Hospital Group, Limerick, Ireland.
Rachel McNamaraDepartment of Medicine and Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
James PowellDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, University Limerick Hospital Group, Limerick, Ireland.
Nuala H O'ConnellDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, University Limerick Hospital Group, Limerick, Ireland.
Colum P DunneCentre for Interventions in Infection, Inflammation & Immunity (4i) and School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-5010-3185
University of Limerick · IEUniversity Hospital Limerick · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough culture-based methods remain a staple element of microbiology analysis, advanced molecular methods increasingly supplement the testing repertoire. Since the advent of 16s and 18s ribosomal RNA PCR in the 2000s, there has been interest in its utility for pathogen detection. Nonetheless, studies assessing the impact on antimicrobial prescribing are limited. We report a single-centre experience of the influence of 16s and 18s PCR testing on antimicrobial treatment, including a cost-analysis.

methodsData were collected retrospectively for all samples sent for 16s and 18s PCR testing between January 2014 and December 2020. Results were compared to any culture-based result. Assessment focused on any change of antimicrobial treatment based on PCR result, or use of the result as supportive evidence for microbiological diagnosis.

results310 samples relevant to 268 patients were referred for 16s/18s rRNA PCR testing during the period. Culture was performed for 234 samples. Enrichment culture was performed for 83 samples. 82 of 300 samples sent for 16s PCR had positive results (20.8%). When culture was performed, enrichment reduced the outcome of 16s PCR only positive results (4/36 [11.1%] versus 14/35 [40.0%], p = 0.030 where a pathogen found). 18s PCR yielded 9 positive results from 67 samples. The 16s PCR result influenced antimicrobial change for 6 patients (2.2%). We estimated the cost for 16s PCR testing to result in one significant change in antimicrobial therapy to be €3,340. 18s PCR did not alter antimicrobial treatment.

conclusionThere was limited impact of 16s PCR results on antimicrobial treatments. Relevance to practice was affected by relatively long turn-around-time for results. Utility may be increased in specialised surgical centres, or by reducing turn-around-time. Enrichment culture should be considered on samples where 16s PCR is requested. There remains limited evidence for use of 18s PCR in clinical management, and further studies in this area are likely warranted.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCommunicable DiseasesFungiGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Positive BacteriaHumansMicrobiological TechniquesPolymerase Chain ReactionRetrospective StudiesRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 18STertiary Care CentersAnti-Bacterial AgentsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 18S

Identifiers

PMID34637486
PMCPMC8509882
OpenAlexW3206420729

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.