ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2022
Evaluation of Flow Cytometry for Cell Count and Detection of Bacteria in Biological Fluids.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2022. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of Flow Cytometric Bacterial Count in Synovial Fluid to Detect Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Metabolic characterization of alkane monooxygenases and the growth phenotypes ofJournal of bacteriology · 2025Article
- Digital Barcodes for High-Throughput Screening.Chem & bio engineering · 2024Review
- Development and evaluation of automated synovial fluid total cell count on an Iris iQ® 200 for identifying patients at risk of septic arthritis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2023Article
- What is the best technic to dislodge Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm on medical implants?BMC 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The analysis of biological fluids is crucial for the diagnosis and monitoring of diseases causing effusions and helps in the diagnosis of infectious diseases. The gold standard method for cell count in biological fluids is the manual method using counting chambers. The microbiological routine procedures consist of Direct Gram staining and culture on solid or liquid media. We evaluate the analytical performance of SYSMEX UF4000 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) and Sysmex XN10 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) in comparison with cytological and microbiological routine procedures. A total of 526 biological fluid samples were included in this study (42 ascitic, 31 pleural, 31 peritoneal, 125 cerebrospinal, 281 synovial, and 16 peritoneal dialysis fluids). All samples were analyzed by flow cytometry and subsequently processed following cytological and/or microbiological routine procedures. With regard to cell counts, UF4000 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) showed a performance that was at least equivalent to those of the reference methods and superior to those of XN10 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan). Moreover, the bacterial count obtained with UF4000 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) was significantly higher among culture or Direct Gram stain positive samples. We established three optimal cutoff points to predict Direct Gram stain positive samples for peritoneal (465.0 bacteria/μL), synovial (1200.0 bacteria/μL), and cerebrospinal fluids (17.2 bacteria/μL) with maximum sensitivity and negative predictive values. Cell count and detection of bacteria by flow cytometry could be used upstream cytological and microbiological routine procedures to improve and accelerate the diagnosis of infection of biological fluid samples.
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.