↓ Skip to main content

Prospective comparison of a PCR assay and a microbiological culture technique for identification of pathogens from blood and non-blood samples in septic patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prospective comparison of a PCR assay and a microbiological culture technique for identification of pathogens from blood and non-blood samples in septic patients
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40560-015-0116-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Runa Plettig, Andreas Nowak, Veronika Balau, Klaus Hahnenkamp, Taras Usichenko

Abstract

Molecular amplification techniques are suggested to be a useful adjunct in early detection of pathogens in septic patients. The aim was to study the feasibility of a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay compared to the standard microbiological culture (MC) technique in identification of pathogenic microorganisms from blood and non-blood samples in septic patients. Samples for pathogen identification were taken during febrile septic episodes (SE) in 54 patients with sepsis and analyzed using both MC and PCR. Semi-automated multiplex PCR, provided by Philips Medical Systems, was able to detect nine different pathogens. The accuracy of pathogen identification using PCR vs. MC as well as the time-saving effect of PCR on the potential decision-making process for antimicrobial therapy was evaluated. In a total of 258 samples taken during 87 SE, both methods yielded more pathogens from the non-blood than blood samples (87 % vs. 45 %; p = 0.002). PCR identified more pathogens than MC in the blood samples (98 vs. 21; p < 0.0001), but not in other body fluids. In 35 SE, the potential decision on appropriate antimicrobial therapy based on PCR results could have been made 50 (median; interquartile range 35-87) hours earlier than decisions based on standard MC. In septic patients, multiplex PCR identified more pathogenic microorganisms isolated from the blood samples than the standard MC technique. In the non-blood samples, PCR was comparable to that of MC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Other 2 17%
Student > Postgraduate 2 17%
Unknown 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2015.
All research outputs
#11,933,789
of 15,640,884 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#276
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,719
of 366,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#33
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,640,884 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.