ArticleIndian journal of microbiology2024
Q-Scoring System for the Evaluation of the Superficial Wound Swab Samples: A Clinical Microbiological Aspect.
Article in Indian journal of microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Wound swab cultures are frequently requested from patients suspected of having a wound infection. The quality of the sample should also be evaluated by performing a Gram-stained microscopic examination. "Q-scoring system" is not widely used and the literature on the subject is limited. Methods: A total of 4648 wound swab samples were evaluated. Samples with a Q-score of "0" were considered as "poor quality samples", and those with a score of " ≥ 1" were classified as "good quality samples". Microorganisms grown in the culture of samples that scored above one were identified by mass spectrometry, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed. Results: Gram stain results were found to be consistent with the culture result in 57.10% (n = 1078) of and inconsistent with the culture result in 42.90% (n = 813) of the samples. The number of samples with Q-scores one, two, and three among the 813 samples was 62, 29, and 722, respectively. The value observed in Q3 was found to be statistically significantly higher than the values observed in Q1 and Q2 ( Conclusion: As a conclusion, the Q-scoring system will provide a common language between the laboratory and the clinic, especially by standardizing the evaluation of wound swab 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.