ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
The clinical impact of 16S ribosomal RNA PCR and sequencing in the identification of bacterial infections: a 7-year report from a Lebanese tertiary care center.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance and practicality of 16S nanopore sequencing for routine bacterial identification in clinical samples.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Clinical impact of 16S rRNA RC-PCR NGS on infectious disease management.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The identification of bacterial pathogens in the clinical setting is essential for providing optimal care and improving outcomes. The primary objective of this study was to assess the performance of the 16S test in bacterial identification from different samples and determine its impact on clinical outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective study of patient samples collected from all age-groups at the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC), from May 2016 to December 2022. Descriptive statistics were conducted to calculate the 16S test positivity rate and to describe the different types of organisms. Univariate analyses were performed to study the clinical impact of the 16S test and its comparison to the conventional bacterial culture among different characteristics. A p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 1489 specimens were submitted for the 16S test during the study period. Of the submitted tests, 395 (26%) had bacteria identified by the 16S test and/or culture. Out of the culture negative/16S positive group, the majority were from specimens collected from the skin and soft tissue system (24 out of 92, 26.1%). This was followed by musculoskeletal specimens (15 out of 92, 16.3%), and central nervous system specimens (14 out of 92, 15.2%). Pus samples had a positivity rate of 66.3% with 5 times higher odds of being positive compared to non-pus samples (25%). Overall, there were 260 identified organisms by 16S test of which the most detected organisms were Conclusion: Identification of pathogens using the 16S test in combination with conventional cultures is essential in clinical diagnostics and management of infectious diseases to provide targeted therapy and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Shorter turnaround time, improved patient management, and cost-effectiveness are key factors to consider when advocating for the broader adoption of 16S testing.
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.