ReviewPeerJ2026
The evolution of diagnostic microbiology: integrating culture-based methods and genomic advances.
Review in PeerJ, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past several decades, diagnostic microbiology has progressed from traditional culture methods to include modern, culture-independent molecular and metagenomic approaches for diagnosing infectious diseases and guiding antimicrobial therapy. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, clinical diagnostic microbiology has made considerable strides in optimizing pathogen identification. This progress has been driven by the introduction of optimized sampling methods, advanced diagnostic kits, and new technologies like mass spectrometry for bacterial identification, real-time genomics, and adaptable culture systems. However, the costs of advanced molecular methods are very high, and they require massive instrumentation to reach a clinical diagnosis. Conventional cultures remain cost-effective and can be performed with minimal resource requirements compared to advanced laboratory equipment. However, the most significant challenge with conventional methods is the reporting time of results (several days). Since the newer molecular and genomic methods do not meet all the diagnostic demands, strategies have shifted toward employing techniques with higher precision, sensitivity, and better time efficiency. The integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning is set to redefine diagnostic paradigms, facilitating not only rapid and precise pathogen identification but also addressing foundational limitations in data analysis and interpretation. This review evaluates the synergy between conventional and emerging diagnostic technologies, emphasizing their clinical utility, limitations, and future trajectories for diverse audiences in microbiology and healthcare.
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.