ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2004
Evaluation of the BD PHOENIX automated microbiology system for detection of methicillin resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current and emerging techniques for antibiotic susceptibility tests.Theranostics · 2017Review
- Expert systems in clinical microbiology.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2011Review
- Comparison of the BD Phoenix system with the cefoxitin disk diffusion test for detection of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2009Article
- Rapid detection of methicillin-resistant staphylococci by real-time PCR directly from positive blood culture bottles.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2007Article
- Evaluation of the BD Phoenix automated microbiology system for identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of staphylococci and enterococci.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2006Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The new BD PHOENIX automated microbiology system (Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Systems, Sparks, Md.) is designed for automated rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing and identification of clinically relevant bacteria. In our study, the accuracy and speed of the BD PHOENIX oxacillin MIC determination for detecting methicillin resistance was evaluated for 200 clinical isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS). Compared to mecA PCR, the BD PHOENIX system detected methicillin resistance with a sensitivity of 99.2%. According to the actual NCCLS oxacillin MIC breakpoint of > or =0.5 microg/ml, the specificity was only 64.9%, attributable to false-positive results in 26 mecA-negative strains, including 16 non-Staphylococcus epidermidis strains. Alternative oxacillin breakpoints of > or =1, > or =2, and > or =4 microg/ml resulted in increased specificities of 83.8, 94.6, and 100% and high sensitivities of 99.2, 99.2, and 96.7%, respectively. Similarly, NCCLS broth microdilution oxacillin MICs exhibited a sensitivity of 100% but a low degree of specificity. However, the previous oxacillin MIC breakpoint of > or =4 microg/ml performed with a sensitivity of 98.4% and a specificity of 98.7%. BD PHOENIX oxacillin MIC results were available after 9 h for 40.5% of the examined CoNS strains and were completed after 17 h. Our results revealed the high reliability of the BD PHOENIX system as a phenotypic method for detection of resistance to oxacillin in mecA-positive CoNS. However, for the improvement of specificity, reevaluation of the optimal oxacillin MIC breakpoint for CoNS appears to be necessary.
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.