ReviewPLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Laboratory diagnosis of melioidosis.
Review in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 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.
- Review
- Human infections caused by pathogenic Burkholderia: current clinical challenges and future perspectives.Infection · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Melioidosis, caused by the Gram-negative bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei, is an infectious disease with high rates of morbidity and mortality, which primarily affects low- and middle-income countries in South and Southeast Asia and Australia. The clinical manifestations of this disease are nonspecific and, therefore, rapid laboratory diagnosis is especially critical as appropriate management requires specific antimicrobials. This article aims to provide an overview of the current diagnostic methodologies, emerging technologies, susceptibility testing, and future perspectives for laboratory diagnosis of melioidosis. By examining conventional culture methods, mass spectrometry, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, antigen detection, molecular diagnostics, and serological assays, this article highlights the current challenges in accurately and cost-effectively diagnosing melioidosis in diverse clinical and resource-limited settings. A detailed analysis of current and future diagnostic methodologies will offer valuable insights for clinicians, researchers, and public health professionals. This review aims to influence clinical and laboratory guidelines for diagnosing melioidosis and future research directions.
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.