ArticleERJ open research2026
Assessment of a bacterial quantification assay to detect and monitor
Article in ERJ open research, 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.
- Rapid molecular detection of respiratory pathogens in patients with bronchiectasis.ERJ open research · 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
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: A novel bacterial quantification assay (BQA) targeting ribosomal RNA (rRNA) for the detection of viable PA was developed. The BQA sensitivity and specificity in patient samples was assessed utilising culture (n=57), as well as BioFire pneumonia panel (n=111) and 16S rRNA gene sequencing (n=62). The potential clinical impact of the BQA in clinical settings was explored using two international patient cohorts. Results: The BQA detected PA in 100% of samples where PA was identified by other methods. The BQA quantification was positively correlated with quantitative culture (r=0.42; p<0.001) and BioFire (r=0.68; p<0.001). The BQA identified PA in an additional 23-44% of cases. To evaluate if this increased detection had clinical implications, we tested sputum samples considered to be PA negative by culture in patients who subsequently tested positive for PA. The BQA detected PA in 8 out of 20 patient samples 8-484 days prior to primary detection by culture. In patients considered to have successful PA eradication by culture, the BQA detected PA in 13 samples from 27 patients who went on to relapse. Conclusions: The BQA is a highly sensitive detection and quantification method for PA. The BQA demonstrated improved detection and treatment monitoring compared to culture, identifying patients who went on to either isolate a first PA or relapse.
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.