Identification of Burkholderia cepacia Complex: Comparing Conventional, Automated, and Molecular Methods in a Tertiary Care Center.

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.

1. Human infections caused by pathogenic Burkholderia: current clinical challenges and future perspectives.Infection · 2026
   Review
2. Laboratory strategies for the identification of Burkholderia species: From classical phenotyping to advanced genomic and proteomic approaches.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2026
   Review
3. Epidemiology, resistance profiles, and risk factors of multidrug- and carbapenem-resistant Serratia marcescens infections: a retrospective study of 242 cases.BMC infectious diseases · 2025
   Article
4. Cervicovaginal Microbiome and HPV: A Standardized Approach to 16S/ITS NGS and Microbial Community Profiling for Viral Association.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as