Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36374024›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2022

Diagnostic Yield and Impact on Antimicrobial Management of 16S rRNA Testing of Clinical Specimens.

Pruke Eamsakulrat, Pitak Santanirand, Angsana Phuphuakrat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The utility of disc space and vertebral body specimens cell count differential for the diagnosis of native vertebral osteomyelitis: a prospective cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

3 authors.

Pruke EamsakulratDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol Universitygrid.10223.32, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pitak SantanirandDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol Universitygrid.10223.32, Bangkok, Thailand.
Angsana PhuphuakratDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol Universitygrid.10223.32, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-2474-1850

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

16S rRNA gene sequencing is increasingly used in clinical practice for bacterial identification of clinical specimens. However, studies on its applicability to direct clinical specimens are limited. Here, we studied the diagnostic yield and impact of 16S rRNA gene sequencing from direct clinical specimens on antimicrobial management. Adult inpatients whose attending physician requested 16S rRNA gene sequencing and corresponding bacterial culture from a direct clinical specimen between January and December 2021 in a university hospital were prospectively included in this study. A total of 434 specimens from 374 patients were requested. Of these, 253 (58.3%) specimens were collected from patients whose final diagnosis indicated a bacterial infection, whereas 181 (41.7%) specimens were from nonbacterial infections. Using the final diagnosis as a "gold standard," the sensitivity and specificity of 16S rRNA gene sequencing were 38.3% and 93.9%, respectively. Among the bacterial infection cases, the proportion of 16S rRNA gene sequencing-positive and culture-positive cases was 32.4%, and the proportion of sequencing-positive and culture-negative cases was 5.9%. The impact on antimicrobial management was evident in 10 (2.3%) specimens, which all resulted in the continuation of antibiotics. The impact on antimicrobial management was highest in skin and soft tissue infections, followed by bone and joint infections. In this study, the long turnaround time of 16S rRNA gene sequencing of clinical specimens was a limiting factor. In conclusion, the overall diagnostic yield of 16S rRNA gene sequencing in bacterial infection cases was fair, being useful in selected cases. Restrictions on test requests may improve test utilization in this setting.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsBacterial InfectionsAdultDNA, BacterialHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Analysis, DNAAnti-Infective AgentsDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNAantimicrobial managementclinical specimensdiagnostic yieldimpact

Identifiers

PMID36374024
PMCPMC9769669

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.