ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Evaluation of the multiplex PCR combined with capillary electrophoresis technique for detecting pathogenic bacteria and antibiotic resistance genes in bone infections.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOrthopedic wound infection is a difficult problem in the clinic. Accurate and rapid microbiological test results are essential for case management, antibiotic therapy, and infection control.
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 1285 specimens (puncture fluid, catheter, secretions, joint fluid, lavage fluid, extraction fluid, blood culture, drainage fluid, cerebrospinal fluid, bone, prosthesis tissue, etc.) from 739 patients who received orthopedic diagnosis and treatment, using routine conventional method (RCM)s as a reference method to evaluate the performance of multiplex PCR combined with capillary electrophoresis (mPCR-CE) for detecting pathogens and antibiotic resistance genes associated with bone infection.
resultsAmong the 1285 samples analyzed, 1045 samples were consistent with the results of the RCM, with an agreement rate of 81.32%. Among the 155 inconsistent results, 13 (1.01%) were mPCR-CE negative but RCM positive, 142 (11.05%) was mPCR-CE positive but RCM negative. Compared with RCM, mPCR-CE demonstrated positive percentage and negative percentage agreement values of 65.37% and 98.35%, respectively. Moreover, the detection rate of multidrug-resistant bacteria by the mPCR-CE method was generally better than that by the RCM method. The detection rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) by the mPCR-CE method is relatively high. The traditional drug-sensitive culture method is more inclined to detect extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs). The mPCR-CE method has obvious advantages in terms of timeliness.
conclusionThis study revealed that mPCR-CE is a new and effective diagnostic method that can significantly reduce the identification time of bacterial identification and drug resistance, and has the potential to improve the management of orthopedic infections.
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.