ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2024
The microbiological outcomes of culture-negative blood specimens using 16S rRNA broad-range PCR sequencing: a retrospective study in a Canadian province from 2018 to 2022.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid Microbiological Diagnostics for Sepsis: Narrative Review of Current and Prospective Approaches.Critical care explorations · 2026Review
- From Culture to Sequencing: Evolving Strategies for the Diagnosis of Pediatric Spondylodiscitis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Review
- Current landscape and challenges in anaerobic bloodstream infections: epidemiology, microbiology, and clinical management.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Molecular diagnosis of campylobacter splenic abscess in an immunocompetent adolescent: A case report and literature review.IDCases · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Broad-range 16S rRNA PCR and sequencing of 1,183 blood specimens from 853 unique patients yielded an interpretable sequence and bacterial identification in 29%, 16S rRNA amplification with uninterpretable sequences in 53%, and no amplification in 18%. This study highlights the potential utility of this technique in identifying fastidious gram-negative and anaerobic bacteria but the frequent recovery of environmental and contaminant organisms argues for its judicious use. IMPORTANCE: The existing literature focuses on its performance compared to blood cultures in patients with sepsis, leaving a gap in the literature regarding other blood specimens in suspected infectious syndrome across the severity spectrum. We aimed to characterize its microbiological outcomes and provide insight into its potential clinical utility.
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.