ArticleScientific reports2024
Novel rapid method for identifying and quantifying pathogenic bacteria within four hours of blood collection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Selective detection of clinically relevant Gram-negative bacteria using a colistin-functionalized ISFET biosensor.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis in Advanced Cirrhosis: Diagnosis by Tm Mapping and Inflammatory Profiles of Extracellular Vesicles.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Rapid molecular assays versus blood culture for bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Low-cost in-house re-formulated brain heart infusion medium for effective planktonic growth and early detection of bloodstream bacterial pathogens.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Integrating Genomic Data with the Development of CRISPR-Based Point-of-Care-Testing for Bacterial Infections.Current clinical microbiology reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction and is considered a major cause of health loss. However, since the current biomarkers of sepsis reflect the host's immune response to microorganisms, they would inevitably cause a time-lag. This means that there is still no truly reliable biomarker of sepsis. In the present study, we developed a novel method for identifying and quantifying unknown pathogenic bacteria within four hours of sample collection. The most important point of this study is that the novel method can be used to determine the number of bacteria in a sample as a novel biomarker of infectious diseases. Indeed, based on the number of bacteria, we were able to accurately estimate the severity of microbial infection. Furthermore, using the time-dependent changes in the number of bacteria, we were able to monitor the therapeutic effect accurately. The rapid identification and quantification of bacteria may change our approach to medical care.
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.