ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2001
Optimal inoculation methods and quality control for the NCCLS oxacillin agar screen test for detection of oxacillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reporting antimicrobial susceptibilities and resistance phenotypes in Staphylococcus spp.: a nationwide proficiency study.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2021Article
- Comparison of real-time PCR with disk diffusion, agar screen and E-test methods for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.Current microbiology · 2010Article
- Comparison of mecA polymerase chain reaction with phenotypic methods for the detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.Current microbiology · 2007Article
- Correlation of penicillin Binding protein 2a detection with oxacillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and discovery of a novel penicillin binding protein 2a mutation.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2005Article
- Results of disk diffusion testing with cefoxitin correlate with presence of mecA in Staphylococcus spp.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2005Article
- Performance of eight methods, including two new rapid methods, for detection of oxacillin resistance in a challenge set of Staphylococcus aureus organisms.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To define more precisely the inoculation methods to be used in the oxacillin screen test for Staphylococcus aureus, we tested agar screen plates prepared in house with 6 microg of oxacillin/ml and 4% NaCl using the four different inoculation methods that would most likely be used by clinical laboratories. The organisms selected for testing were 19 heteroresistant mecA-producing strains and 41 non-mecA-producing strains for which oxacillin MICs were near the susceptible breakpoint. The inoculation method that was preferred by all four readers and that resulted in the best combination of sensitivity and specificity was a 1-microl loopful of a 0.5 McFarland suspension. A second objective of the study was to then use this method to inoculate plates from five different manufacturers of commercially prepared media. Although all commercial media performed with acceptable sensitivity compared to the reference lot, one of the commercial lots demonstrated a lack of specificity. Those lots of oxacillin screen medium that fail to grow heteroresistant strains can be detected by using S. aureus ATCC 43300 as a positive control in the test and by using transmitted light to carefully examine the plates for any growth. However, lack of specificity with commercial lots may be difficult to detect using any of the current quality control organisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.