ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1998
Isolation of blood-borne Mycobacterium avium by using the nonradioactive BACTEC 9000 MB system and comparison with a solid-culture system.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1998. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endocarditis due to rare and fastidious bacteria.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2001Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted a 12-month prospective study comparing two approaches to the detection of Mycobacterium avium in the blood of human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected patients, namely, a lytic centrifugation system combined with Middlebrook solid culture medium (the conventional procedure) and the nonradiometric BACTEC 9000 MB system. Species identification relied on 16S rRNA probe hybridization and cell wall fatty acids chromatography. M. avium was isolated in 17 of 345 (5%) blood specimens by the BACTEC 9000 MB automated system and in 14 of 345 (4%) blood specimens by the conventional procedure (nonsignificant, chi2 test). Detection time was 16 +/- 6 days by the BACTEC 9000 MB automated system and 27 +/- 3 days by the conventional procedure (P < 0.001, Student t test). Non-M. avium mycobacteria were not recovered during the study period. Contamination rate was 8% (30 specimens) by the BACTEC 9000 MB system and 0% by the conventional procedure, indicating the necessity of using an antibiotic mixture (PANTA, consisting of polymyxin B, amphotericin B, nalidixic acid, trimethoprim, and azlocillin). Working time was 1 min 30 s by the BACTEC 9000 MB system and 8 min by the conventional procedure, which was 1.8 times more expensive than the BACTEC system. Use of the BACTEC 9000 MB system increased the sensitivity of M. avium detection and reduced detection time in blood culture.
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.