ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Detection of Burkholderia gladioli in contaminated ultrasonic coupling agent.
Article in BMC microbiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn July 2023, Burkholderia gladioli was detected in a patient's ascites specimen. This pathogen had not been detected in the hospital for nearly 3 years. Therefore, an investigation was immediately launched.
methodsMicrobial environmental hygiene samples were collected from the operating room environment, the ultrasonic probe, and ultrasonic coupling agents in the interventional ultrasound department. The quantitative method was used to culture and identify bacterial species. Average Nucleotide Identity was used to compare the similarity of all orthologous protein-coding genes between pairwise genomes.
resultsThe antimicrobial susceptibility spectrum of B. gladioli isolated from the coupling agent was consistent with that of strains isolated from the patient sample. The two isolates were the same clone and 100% identical according to ANI. The qualified rate of non-sterile coupling agent was 18.37%; sterile coupling agents were 100% qualified. With contaminated and qualified ultrasonic coupling agent, the number of bacteria exceeding the standard rate was 88.00% and 56.00%, respectively. The qualified rate of total bacterial count of the ultrasonic probe disinfected with disinfectant wipes or ultraviolet light reached 90% or 100%, respectively. The rate of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii and carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae detected on the bedside ultrasound machine was 13.04% (6/46).
conclusionIn this case, we identified contaminated ultrasonic coupling agent and irregular use of non-sterile coupling agent. To avoid coupling agent contamination, monitoring and routine cleaning of the ultrasonic examination environment are crucial. Robust environmental testing and epidemiological investigation, along with early identification of uncommon bacteria using information system monitoring, are essential to contain an outbreak. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.