ArticleASM case reports2025
Genomic analysis of a
Article in ASM case reports, 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.
- False-positiveJournal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Global distribution of Xpert CT/NG assayEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025Article
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
Background: Diagnostics of sexually transmitted infections, such as Case Summary: Analysis of pharyngeal samples from two men who have sex with men was positive for NG in the Abbott Alinity m STI assay, but negative upon confirmation testing with the Cepheid Xpert CT/NG assay. A pharyngeal culture isolate was obtained from one of the two men. The isolate tested negative for being NG in four different commercial nucleic acid amplification tests. A laboratory-developed PCR based on two targets gave inconclusive results, with positive detection for the Conclusion: Confirmatory tests with alternative targets are essential for accurate analysis of NG, especially in low-prevalence settings. Evaluation of diagnostic tools to ensure accurate detection of NG is also needed.
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.