ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Methodological Evaluation of Three Bacteriophage Isolation Methods From Environmental Water Samples.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundBacteriophages are ubiquitous viruses that specifically infect and lyse bacterial hosts and have gained increasing attention for applications in biocontrol, phage therapy, food safety, and diagnostics. Efficient isolation of bacteriophages from environmental sources is essential for both research and applied purposes. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the efficiency of three bacteriophage isolation methods from environmental water samples.
methodsIn this comparative methodological study, 96 environmental water samples were collected from four aquatic sites in Tangail, Bangladesh, over a one-year period (January-December 2025), with sampling conducted twice monthly. Six bacteriophages targeting clinically relevant bacterial hosts were assessed using three isolation methods: direct recovery, polyethylene glycol (PEG)-mediated precipitation, and host-based enrichment. Phage recovery efficiency was compared using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests, and effect sizes were estimated using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsThe average phage recovery rates were 9.38%, 21.35%, and 47.20% for the direct, PEG, and enrichment methods, respectively. A significant difference in recovery proportions was observed among methods (χ² = 224.1, df = 2, p < 0.0001). Pairwise comparisons demonstrated that the enrichment method yielded significantly higher recovery than the PEG method (OR = 3.29, 95% CI: 2.55-4.26, p < 0.0001) and the direct method (OR = 8.65, 95% CI: 6.28-11.97, p < 0.0001).
conclusionsThe modified enrichment method significantly improves bacteriophage recovery compared to the direct and PEG-based approaches, particularly for low-abundance phages. This method represents a robust and sensitive strategy for isolating bacteriophages from environmental water samples and may support future applications in phage-based therapeutics, environmental surveillance, and microbial control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.