ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1997
Characterization of Scedosporium prolificans clinical isolates by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of multidrug-resistant organisms on patients considered for lung transplantation.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2013Review
- Molecular typing of Australian Scedosporium isolates showing genetic variability and numerous S. aurantiacum.Emerging infectious diseases · 2008Article
- Infections caused by Scedosporium spp.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2008Review
- Genotyping study of Scedosporium apiospermum isolates from patients with cystic fibrosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2002Article
- Molecular epidemiology of Scedosporium apiospermum infection determined by PCR amplification of ribosomal intergenic spacer sequences in patients with chronic lung disease.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2001Article
- Molecular variability of Pseudallescheria boydii, a neurotropic opportunist.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2000Article
- Developments in fungal taxonomy.Clinical microbiology reviews · 1999Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fingerprinting by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis was used to differentiate Scedosporium prolificans isolates. A total of 59 arbitrary primers were screened with six unrelated S. prolificans isolates, and a panel of 12 primers was selected. The 12 primers were then used to detect DNA polymorphisms among 17 S. prolificans isolates from 11 patients with systemic S. prolificans infections diagnosed in three hospitals located in geographically different areas of Spain. Eight patients were diagnosed with S. prolificans infection in a single institution over a 6-year period, and two other patients were diagnosed with S. prolificans infection in a different hospital over a 1-year period. No single primer allowed for the discrimination of all the isolates from different patients, but this was possible by combining the RAPD patterns from three primers (UBC 701, AB1.08, and AB1.11 or UBC 701, AB1.08, and UBC 707). However, multiple isolates from the same patient were identical. In this study, we also compared a visual method and a computerized method for the analysis of the RAPD patterns. Both methods were satisfactory and gave few discordances, but given the advantages and disadvantages of each method, both systems should be used together. RAPD analysis provided a fast and economical means of typing S. prolificans isolates, with a high level of discrimination among unrelated isolates. Typing by RAPD analysis confirmed that the S. prolificans infections were epidemiologically unrelated.
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.