4.0 Article

Molecular and culture based assessment of bacterial pathogens in subjects with diabetic foot ulcer

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2018.03.001

关键词

Diabetic foot ulcers; Conventional methods; Polymerase chain reaction

资金

  1. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial funds, New Delhi, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Expeditious and precise discerning of bacterial pathogens is a fundamental grail, of clinical diagnostic microbiology. Genotypic detection is a budding substitute to recognize phenotypic culture based processes in bacterial identification. Aims: We report a comparative evaluation of biochemical and genomic-based assays for exploring the commonest bacterial flora of infected diabetic foot ulcers along with clinical variables of subjects enrolled. Methods: The pathogens selected (i) Staphylococcus aureus ii) Pseudomonas aeruginosa, iii) Escherichia coli and iv) Klebsiella pneumonia, stood for the most frequent isolates of diabetic foot infection in previous studies from Northern India. Identification of these pathogens were done by conventional assays and polymerase chain reaction. Results: Of 50 specimens obtained from infected DFUs, 74% of cases were affirmative by bacteriological assays and 90% showed positivity via polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Among processed samples 44 isolates were detectable through phenotypic analysis and 65 bacteria by species-specific PCR. Thirteen samples and 21 isolates could not be scrutinized by phenotypic identification systems. The most prevalent pathogens identifiable were Klebsiella pneumonia, followed by Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Escherichia coli. Conclusions: We have shown that PCR-based diagnostic methods improved the identification compared to conventional methods and highlight the incorporation of PCR due to shorten turnaround time translating into improved clinical outcomes. (C) 2018 Diabetes India. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据