ライフサイエンスコーパス: Gram stain

1 ty of 93.7% compared to the Nugent criteria (Gram stain).

2 cted female partner had an evaluable vaginal Gram stain.

3 eumonia, and 94% showed abundant bacteria on Gram stain.

4 cimens demonstrating yeast-like organisms by Gram stain.

5 or = 2 mL during 4 hrs) with organism(s) on Gram stain.

6 exhibited easily recognizable morphology on Gram stain.

7 <19.8 or bacterial vaginosis as assessed by Gram stain.

8 esence of intracellular organisms (ICO), and Gram stain.

9 ed to specimens that appeared unimicrobic on Gram stain.

10 clear cells per high-power field on urethral Gram stain.

11 hematoxylin-eosin, periodic acid-Schiff, and Gram stain.

12 l detection of these bacteria required urine Gram stains.

13 d cultures, 63 of whom had positive valvular Gram stains.

14 ae using NAATs and bacterial vaginosis using Gram stains.

15 exhibiting Gram-positive cocci upon initial Gram staining.

16 microbiological methods, such as culture and gram staining.

17 urease, catalase, and oxidase reactions and Gram staining.

18 onial morphology on CCFA, or morphology upon Gram staining.

19 ent infections without organisms detected by Gram staining.

20 acity could be observed visually, only after Gram staining.

21 r cells (PMNL) per high-power field (hpf) on Gram stain (2050 vs. 320 ifu), and diagnoses of mucopuru

22 MRSA on TSA II was confirmed by Gram staining, a coagulase test, and a cefoxitin disk te

23 When the LFA was paired with Gram staining, a sensitivity of 100% was achieved after

24 Gram staining, acid-fast staining, and lactic acid, cryp

25 Test of cure by clinical criteria and Gram stain analysis and repeated polymerase chain reacti

26 The gram stain and acridine-orange leucocyte cytospin test (

27 We assessed the gram stain and AOLC test in suspected cases of catheter-

28 The gram stain and AOLC test is a simple, and rapid method f

29 The sensitivity of the gram stain and AOLC test was 96% and the specificity was

30 Therefore, we compared the Gram stain and culture results for 361 consecutive ETA s

31 nd clinical presentation of endophthalmitis, gram stain and culture results of intraocular fluid, tim

32 he likelihood of septic arthritis before the Gram stain and culture test results are known.

33 rmation beyond that derived from the initial Gram stain and in less time than phenotypic culture-base

34 between bacterial vaginosis (BV) assessed by Gram stain and incident trichomonal, gonococcal, and/or

35 swabs were obtained from female partners for Gram stain and male partners were tested for HIV-1.

36 esting fair concordance between organisms on Gram stain and recovery by culture.

37 edictive value that is not enhanced by urine Gram stain and that antibiotic selection did not vary ba

38 m direct and extracted culture methods using Gram staining and a GAS-specific latex agglutination tes

39 Gram staining and fluorescence in situ hybridization ide

40 lection of two corneal scrapes, one used for Gram staining and the other transported in BHI followed

41 ndpoints, evaluated every 2 months, were BV (Gram stain) and VVC (positive wet mount and culture).

42 otassium hydroxide with calcofluor white and Gram stains) and culture examination (5% sheep blood aga

43 cteria by culture, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, Gram stain, and fluorescence in situ hybridization.

44 e stained with hematoxylin and eosin, tissue gram stain, and immunostains for von Willebrand factor (

45 re examined by traditional methods (culture, Gram stain, and latex agglutination for bacterial antige

46 Results were compared to culture, Gram stain, and PCR results.

47 lmonary secretions defined by neutrophils on Gram stain, and positive cultures for pathogenic organis

48 ss the status of patients for whom cultures, Gram stains, and clinical evaluations for meningococcal

49 e original resistant organism on culture and Gram stain at end of treatment in 14 out of 16 patients

50 lture devices and were positive for yeast by Gram stain at seven study sites.

51 Gram staining, bright-field microscopy, hematoxylin and

52 were specimens with no organisms reported on Gram stain but significant growth on culture, while 42%

53 gesting that VAP is unlikely with a negative Gram stain but the positive predictive value of Gram sta

54 Because the Gram stain can be confusing, abbreviated identification

55 Providing more detailed information than the Gram stain can impart, and in less time than subculturin

56 t sensitivity to TNF-alpha, and possibly the Gram stain classification.

57 Based on gram staining, colony characteristics, biochemical react

58 or patients with Gram-negative rods on urine Gram stain compared to those with Gram-positive cocci (P

59 Thus, microscopic examination of Gram-stained, concentrated CSF is highly sensitive and s

60 gh negative predictive value, but a positive Gram stain correlated poorly with organisms recovered in

61 all of the following criteria: positive CSF Gram stain, CSF absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of at le

62 We present a case of mastoiditis where Gram stain, culture, and molecular diagnosis were nondia

63 of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) often includes Gram stain, culture, antigen detection, and molecular me

64 In conclusion, the clinical utility of urine Gram stain does not warrant the time or cost it requires

65 The Gram stain error rate also varied between sites, ranging

66 ajor tertiary medical care centers evaluated Gram stain error rates across all nonblood specimen type

67 icrobiologists respond to the call to reduce Gram stain error rates?

68 egnant women aged 18 to 45 with clinical and Gram stain evidence of BV were randomized to receive int

69 We reviewed the results of microscopic Gram stain examination and routine culture for 2,635 cer

70 otoxin in BAL fluid > 5 EU/ml is superior to Gram stain examination for the rapid identification of p

71 Gram stain examination of BAL fluid for the presence of

72 ion between culture results and quantitative Gram stain examination was also poor.

73 abbing and compared the cellular content and Gram stain failure rate.

74 Negative predictive value of Gram stain for a VAP prevalence of 20%-30% was 91%, sugg

75 meta-analysis examining respiratory specimen Gram stain for diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumo

76 In 21 studies, pooled sensitivity of Gram stain for VAP was 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI

77 cton Dickinson [BD], Sparks, MD) positive by gram stain for yeast was subcultured to CHROMagar Candid

78 ed for gram-negative bacilli and examined by Gram staining for both sputum adequacy (using the qualit

79 when only one of two cultures is positive by Gram staining for staphylococci.

80 Gram stains from either heat- or methanol-fixed slides s

81 The Gram stain, genus, and species were accurately predicted

82 associated pneumonia, absence of bacteria on Gram stain had a high negative predictive value, but a p

83 Overall, Gram stain had a sensitivity of 54% and a specificity of

84 lture bottles in which yeast was observed by Gram staining (herein referred to as yeast-positive bloo

85 ues for bacteria including quantitative PCR, Gram staining, immunofluorescence and in situ hybridizat

86 -TOF could become a vital second step beside Gram stain in guiding the empirical treatment of patient

87 No organisms were seen by Gram staining in 225 (62%) of the ETAs.

88 th comprehensive bacteriology is superior to Gram staining in identifying pathogens in CF sputum.

89 erent bacteria in each case was performed by Gram staining, in situ hybridization using fluorescence-

90 h the FA and FN media and are preferable for Gram stain interpretation as well.

91 To address Gram stain interpretation proficiency in a satellite/cen

92 is a better indicator of the technologist's Gram stain interpretation proficiency.

93 ll 3 study sites preferred the new media for Gram stain interpretation.

94 ior to lumbar puncture are excluded, the CSF Gram stain is 92% sensitive.

95 BV microbiota as gauged by Gram stain is associated with a significantly elevated r

96 The Gram stain is one of the most commonly performed tests i

97 of our findings, the absence of organisms on Gram staining is a useful criterion for rejecting ETAs f

98 Standardized monitoring of Gram stains is an essential quality control tool for lab

99 5.9%, 97.8%, and 100% on species, genus, and Gram-stain level, respectively.

100 Incorrectly interpreted Gram stains may adversely impact patient care, and yet t

101 Gram stain microscopy and culture results were compared

102 results were compared with those obtained by gram-stain microscopy, culture, and gel electrophoresis

103 I were confirmed as Staphylococcus aureus by Gram stain morphology and a coagulase test.

104 ria) and the interpretation of vaginal-fluid Gram stains (Nugent criteria).

105 A Gram stain of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid was not

106 r to identify Gram-positive cocci noted on a Gram stain of CSF from a previously healthy 26-year-old

107 are unit time course, infectious status, and Gram stain of infecting organism.

108 Gram stain of the BALF was positive in 18 cases.

109 l mice, bacterial were readily detectable by Gram stain of the liver but were undetectable in the VV-

110 On Gram stain of urethral exudates, Nm can be misidentified

111 based on clinical Amsel criteria and direct Gram stain of vaginal secretions.

112 The results of Gram staining of a vaginal smear were consistent with BV

113 These organisms can be seen upon Gram staining of clinical specimens or can be isolated a

114 The phenotype-based scheme included Gram staining of growth on BEAA and subculture of cocci

115 of a composite reference standard comprising Gram staining of sputum samples and sputum/blood culture

116 hotypes per high-power field, as detected by Gram staining of vaginal swab specimens.

117 Gram stains of 87 different clinical samples were prepar

118 Gram staining offered rapid validation of enhanced bindi

119 rosequencing compared to 27.9 +/- 13.6 h for Gram stain or 81.6 +/- 24.0 h for phenotypic identificat

120 nduced sputum, whereas the results of either Gram stain or culture of sputum were positive in 105 of

121 ulture, induced good-quality sputum culture, Gram stain, or urinary Binax demonstrated pneumococci.

122 al-time notification following blood culture Gram stain, organism identification, and antimicrobial s

123 and bacteria were identified on the basis of Gram stain, oxidase, and biochemical reactions.

124 es as the structure of the cell envelope and Gram-staining pattern.

125 nificant variability between laboratories in Gram stain performance and affirm the need for ongoing q

126 t for those who want to evaluate and improve Gram stain performance.

127 ted UTI who had urine culture, UA, and urine Gram stain performed from a single urine specimen.

128 ics warrant consideration in patients with a Gram stain positive for organisms, in cases suspicious f

129 In quality assurance program 2, clinical Gram stains prepared and read by the satellite laborator

130 The Gram stain provides the first clue as to the etiology of

131 Gram staining quickly eliminated gram-positive bacilli f

132 sification scheme directly correlated to the Gram stain reaction in microorganism taxonomy.

133 dard for diagnosis, but the utility of urine Gram stain relative to urinalysis (UA) is unclear.

134 Gram stains remain the cornerstone of diagnostic testing

135 luate the sequential and separate impacts of Gram stain reporting and MALDI-TOF bacterial identificat

136 ng 202 episodes of gram-negative bacteremia, Gram stain reporting had an impact in 42 cases (20.8%).

137 a cases, demonstrating a greater impact than Gram stain reporting.

138 suited to a rapid-response laboratory where Gram stain requests are commonly received on a stat basi

139 Seventy-eight blood cultures with a Gram stain result of Gram-positive cocci in pairs and/or

140 Empirical therapy was prescribed before the Gram stain result was known in 40 (49%) patients and aft

141 ic selection did not vary based on the urine Gram stain result.

142 ed to means of 27.9 +/- 13.6 h to obtain the Gram stain results and 81.6 +/- 24.0 h to generate the f

143 cing compared to the time required to obtain Gram stain results and final culture identification for

144 tic agreement was observed between BAL fluid Gram stain results and microbiologically confirmed gram-

145 re bottles on average about 16 h sooner than Gram stain results became available and approximately 3

146 time of phlebotomy and after notification of Gram stain results by telephone.

147 Molecular tests that supplement Gram stain results from positive blood cultures provide

148 n types, excessive variation was noted among Gram stain results obtained from replicate smears.

149 Gram stain results were discrepant from culture for 5% o

150 reus/CoNS identification simultaneously with Gram stain results.

151 electron microscopy, LIVE/DEAD staining, and Gram staining revealed a difference in the distributions

152 Accordingly, Gram staining revealed bacteria within peritoneal fluids

153 followed by standard samples for blood agar, Gram stain, Sabouraud agar, thioglycolate broth, and bra

154 acterial vaginosis (BV) as defined by Nugent Gram stain score >/=7.

155 aginal smears were categorized by the Nugent Gram stain score (0-3, normal; 4-6, intermediate state;

156 for BV based on a combination of the Nugent Gram stain score and Amsel clinical criteria, were analy

157 Bacterial vaginosis was based on a Nugent's Gram stain score of 7 or higher.

158 reference standard incorporating both Nugent Gram stain scores and Amsel clinical criteria.

159 Therefore, a positive Gram stain should not be used to narrow anti-infective t

160 Debrided tissues examined by Gram stain showed large aggregations of Gram positive co

161 Sequencing of 16S PCR products and Gram staining showed that the majority of bacteria in th

162 mals, stained with hematoxylin-eosin and the Gram stain, showed edema and/or hemorrhage in the lungs

163 A total of 157 patient blood cultures with gram stains showing gram-positive cocci in clusters were

164 We used gram-stained slides of vaginal smears to diagnose abnorm

165 terial DNA is amplified directly from sputum Gram-stained slides.

166 d (SACCT) and determined the failure rate of Gram stain smears (GSS) due to insufficient cellular mat

167 Gram stain smears and culture isolation for N. gonorrhoe

168 We evaluated induced sputum Gram stain smears and cultures from hospitalized childre

169 r these microorganisms have been observed by Gram stain smears from positive blood cultures.

170 al aspirates could be sampled when preparing Gram-stained smears and inoculating cultures.

171 48 of 56 (88%) of cases, examination of the Gram-stained specimen revealed the causative organism.

172 ries were required to interpret standardized Gram-stained specimens of clinical material prepared by

173 The microscopic examination of Gram-stained sputum specimens is very helpful in the eva

174 was considered pneumococcal if either sputum Gram stain, sputum culture, blood culture, or the immuno

175 ity and specificity of blood culture, sputum Gram stain, sputum polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and

176 of emerging rapid molecular results, is the Gram stain still relevant?

177 to collect sufficient cellular material for Gram stain testing remains unknown.

178 are the samples of choice for point-of-care Gram stain testing to diagnose Neisseria gonorrhoeae inf

179 tified by conventional methods that included Gram staining, tests for colonial morphology, tests for

180 discrepant results had reported organisms on Gram stain that were not recovered in culture.

181 of microsporidia in corneal scrapings using Gram stain, the modified Kinyoun acid-fast stain, or bot

182 Time from Gram stain to appropriate antimicrobial de-escalation or

183 to examine the role of respiratory specimen Gram stain to diagnose VAP, and the correlation with fin

184 criteria, and vaginal fluid was assessed by Gram stain to generate Nugent scores.

185 Time from BCB Gram stain to microorganism identification was shorter i

186 Compared to urine Gram stain, UA had equal sensitivity (97.3% versus 97.5%

187 if blood culture, induced-sputum culture or Gram stain, urine antigen test, or whole-blood lytA rtPC

188 culture bottles that demonstrated yeasts on Gram stain using a Candida albicans peptide nucleic acid

189 is enumeration of bacterial morphotypes of a Gram-stained vaginal smear (i.e., Nugent scoring).

190 Alternatively, the reading of Gram-stained vaginal smears by scoring techniques such a

191 the initial positive blood culture until the Gram stain was called was evaluated for 917 cases of blo

192 Urine Gram stain was considered positive if any organisms were

193 Lytic/10 bottle) culture was positive but a Gram stain was negative and there was no growth of bacte

194 ives"; the instrument signaled negative, the Gram stain was negative, and subcultures on chocolate ag

195 m stain but the positive predictive value of Gram stain was only 40%.

196 culture bottles newly positive for yeast by Gram staining was performed at five hospitals.

197 ontained Gram-negative bacilli identified by Gram staining, we isolated bacterial DNA using spin colu

198 ting only Gram-positive cocci in clusters on Gram stain were tested by QuickFISH, a 20-min assay.

199 tles) with Gram-positive cocci observed with Gram staining were analyzed using the BC-GP assay.

200 lture bottles with GPC seen in clusters with Gram staining were tested using the BNSA test and a dire

201 Gram stains were examined under x100 magnification to qu

202 instrument signaled positive, and subsequent Gram stains were positive and subcultures on chocolate a

203 Gram stains were positive in all SeA and SeTA specimens.

204 ginal environment (normal flora confirmed by Gram stain with no candidiasis or trichomoniasis).