ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Evaluation of a Most Probable Number Method for Detection and Quantification of
Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Design of an optical nanobiosensor for detection ofIranian journal of 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The detection and enumeration of Legionella pneumophila (L. pneumophila) in water is crucial for water quality management, human health and has been a research hotspot worldwide. Due to the time-consuming and complicated operation of the plate culture method, it is necessary to adopt a fast and effective method for application. The present study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the performance and applicability of the MPN method by comparing its qualitative and quantitative results with the GB/T 18204.5-2013 and ISO methods, respectively. The qualitative results showed that 372 samples (53%) were negative for both methods; 315 samples (45%) were positively determined by the MPN method, compared with 211 samples (30%) using GB/T 18204.5-2013. The difference in the detection rate between the two methods was statistically significant. In addition, the quantitative results showed that the concentration of L. pneumophila by the MPN method was greater than ISO 11731 and the difference was statistically significant. However, the two methods were different but highly correlated (r = 0.965, p < 0.001). The specificity and sensitivity of the MPN method were 89.85% and 95.73%, respectively. Overall, the results demonstrated that the MPN method has higher sensitivity, a simple operation process and good application prospects in the routine monitoring of L. pneumophila from water 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.