ArticlePeerJ2024
Towards unified reporting of genome sequencing results in clinical microbiology.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Review
- Benchmarking Illumina and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing platforms for whole genome sequencing of bacterial genomes and use in clinical microbiology.BMC medical genomics · 2026Article
- Genomics for antimicrobial resistance-progress and future directions.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Review
- Evaluation of whole-genome sequencing protocols for detection of antimicrobial resistance, virulence factors and mobile genetic elements in antimicrobial-resistant bacteria.Journal of medical microbiology · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) has become a vital tool in clinical microbiology, playing an important role in outbreak investigations, molecular surveillance, and identification of bacterial species, resistance mechanisms and virulence factors. However, the complexity of WGS data presents challenges in interpretation and reporting, requiring tailored strategies to enhance efficiency and impact. This study explores the diverse needs of key stakeholders in healthcare, including clinical management, laboratory work, public surveillance and epidemiology, infection prevention and control, and academic research, regarding WGS-based reporting of clinically relevant bacterial species. In order to determine preferences regarding WGS reports, human-centered design approach was employed, involving an online survey and a subsequent workshop with stakeholders. The survey gathered responses from 64 participants representing the above mentioned healthcare sectors across geographical regions. Key findings include the identification of barriers related to data accessibility, integration with patient records, and the complexity of interpreting WGS results. As the participants designed their ideal report using nine pre-defined sections of a typical WGS report, differences in needs regarding report structure and content across stakeholders became evident. The workshop discussions further highlighted the need to feature critical findings and quality metrics prominently in reports, as well as the demand for flexible report designs. Commonalities were observed across stakeholder-specific reporting templates, such as the uniform ranking of certain report sections, but preferences regarding the depth of content within these sections varied. Using these findings, we suggest stakeholder-specific structures which should be considered when designing customized reporting templates. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of tailoring WGS-based reports of clinically relevant bacteria to meet the distinct needs of diverse healthcare stakeholders. The evolving landscape of digital reporting increases the opportunities with respect to WGS reporting and its utility in managing infectious diseases and public health surveillance.
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.