ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison evaluation of bacterial DNA extraction methods for improved molecular diagnostic accuracy of sepsis-causing pathogens in clinical whole blood samples.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of non-culture methods for the diagnosis of melioidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Fast Microbiology: A Pilot Study Comparing Culture-Independent Digital PCR and Blood Culture for Pathogen Detection in Sepsis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sepsis, a leading cause of mortality, requires rapid and accurate pathogen identification to ensure effective treatment. Current diagnostic methods such as blood cultures are time-consuming, whereas molecular diagnostic techniques represent a promising alternative for faster pathogen detection. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate different DNA extraction methods for the improved detection of infectious pathogens in the bloodstream. Specifically, we compared one column-based DNA extraction method (QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit) with two magnetic bead-based DNA extraction methods (K-SL DNA Extraction Kit and GraBon™ system). Real-time PCR was performed using specific primers to assess the efficiency of each method. The K-SL DNA Extraction Kit and GraBon™ system exhibited higher accuracy rates of 77.5% (22/40) and 76.5% (21/40), respectively, compared to the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit, which had an accuracy rate 65.0% (12/40) for Escherichia coli detection, whereas the GraBon™ system demonstrated higher accuracy rate of 77.5% (22/40) than the other two methods, which had an accuracy rates of 67.5% (14/40) for Staphylococcus aureus detection. All methods displayed high specificity for negative samples (100%). These findings highlight the superior performance of magnetic bead-based methods, particularly when automated, for extracting bacterial DNA from whole blood samples. Such methods may enable the more rapid and accurate diagnosis of bloodstream infections, potentially improving patient outcomes.
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.