ArticleMicroorganisms2026
Intrapartum Molecular Detection of Group B
Article in Microorganisms, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Time to rethink prevention of neonatal group B streptococcal disease.Seminars in immunopathology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antenatal screening for Group B Streptococcus (GBS) does not always reflect intrapartum colonisation status, and rapid molecular point-of-care tests (POCT) have been developed to enable real-time detection during labour. This prospective single-centre study evaluated the performance of six molecular assays (easyNat, FlashDetect, GenDx, GenPad, iPonatic, Revogene) and one antigen-based test (TZcheck) for intrapartum GBS detection under real-world conditions. Vaginal-rectal swabs were collected at admission from 104 women at ≥ 37 weeks of gestation and tested directly without prior enrichment, using conventional intrapartum culture as the reference standard. Diagnostic performance varied substantially across platforms, with positive percent agreement ranging from 0.0% to 80.6%, while negative percent agreement was generally high, except for GenDx. Seven culture-positive samples yielded negative results across all molecular assays, while one sample was consistently positive across multiple molecular platforms despite negative culture. Exploratory observations suggest that differences in lysis procedures may contribute to variability in assay performance, although this could not be formally assessed. These findings highlight the variability of intrapartum molecular POCT under routine conditions and underscore the need for cautious clinical interpretation and local validation prior to implementation.
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.