| Title |
Molecular strategy for the diagnosis of infectious lymphadenitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-018-3238-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elsa Prudent, Bernard La Scola, Michel Drancourt, Emmanouil Angelakis, Didier Raoult |
| Abstract |
Molecular methods have been considered to be the gold standard for the diagnosis of infectious lymphadenitis. However, culture remains critical in the case of low bacterial concentrations. We used molecular assays and culture to examine fresh lymph node biopsies from patients with suspected infectious lymphadenopathy. We analyzed 1762 lymph node biopsies of which 522 (30%) samples were found positive by real-time PCR; the most commonly amplified bacteria were Bartonella henselae (n = 438, 84%), Francisella tularensis (n = 46, 9%), and Mycobacterium spp. (n = 29, 6%). PCR amplification and sequencing of the 16S rDNA were positive for 359 (20%) lymph node specimens including mainly B. henselae (n = 167, 47%), Staphylococcus spp. (n = 77, 21%), and Streptococcus spp. (n = 41, 11%). In total, 351 lymph nodes were cultured on agar plates and 77 (22%) were positive. Significantly more lymph nodes infected by Gram-positive easy-growing agents were diagnosed by culture (n = 45) than by 16S rDNA PCR (p = 0.02). Culture remains critical for the diagnosis of easy-growing bacteria and mycobacteria; clinicians should be aware that a negative molecular result does not imply absence of infection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 56% |
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 March 2018.
All research outputs
#20,472,403
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#2,429
of 2,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,280
of 329,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#37
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 329,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.