ArticleCureus2025
Improving Gram Stain Sensitivity in the Diagnosis of Septic Arthritis.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and hypothesis Gram staining is a fundamental part of the early diagnosis of septic arthritis and helps direct initial antimicrobial therapy. Though research shows uniform high specificity, its sensitivity is low with a comparatively wide spread of values. We hypothesise that a significant component of the variation in Gram stain sensitivity may be attributable to suboptimal laboratory technique and limited experience. Method This is a retrospective observational study. Data from a total of 269 native and prosthetic joint aspirates were collected over two 12-month periods: October 2017 to October 2018 (cohort 1) and January 2023 to January 2024 (cohort 2). Between these periods, the Gram staining technique remained the same; however, the laboratory achieved accreditation from the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). This accreditation was achieved through improved staff training in Gram staining technique, and a policy of second opinions for challenging samples was introduced. Data were analysed using MS Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States) and StatsKingdom software. Results Following UKAS accreditation, Gram stain sensitivity improved from 25.6% to 44.7%. A one-tailed proportions test demonstrated this to be statistically significant at p = 0.035. Regarding secondary outcomes,
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.