Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16272498›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2005

Comparison of an automated repetitive sequence-based PCR microbial typing system to pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for analysis of outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

T L Ross, W G Merz, M Farkosh, K C Carroll

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Outbreak analysis and typing of MRSA isolates by automated repetitive-sequence-based PCR in a region with multiple strain types causing epidemics.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2012
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Identification of CTX-M15-, SHV-28-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae ST15 as an epidemic clone in the Copenhagen area using a semi-automated Rep-PCR typing assay.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2011
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

T L RossThe Johns Hopkins Hospital, Meyer B1-193, 600 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21287-7093, USA. tross@jhmi.edu
W G Merz
M Farkosh
K C Carroll

Funding

NIAID NIH HHS AI-02-031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid and sensitive methods for accurate strain delineation are essential for monitoring and preventing transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) has been the standard technique for strain typing most bacterial species including MRSA. The goal of this study was to compare the performance of the DiversiLab microbial typing system (Bacterial BarCodes, Inc., Houston, TX) (rep-PCR) to that of PFGE for typing MRSA isolates from five well-defined outbreaks. The DiversiLab rep-PCR assay is a rapid, semiautomated method based on PCR amplification of specific regions between noncoding repetitive sequences in the bacterial genome. rep-PCR was performed according to the manufacturer's recommendations, and the results were analyzed and dendrograms were generated using the DiversiLab analysis software (version 2.1.66 a). PFGE was performed and interpreted according to published procedures. rep-PCR results using similarity indices (SI) of 80%, 85%, and 90% were compared to PFGE analysis. In addition, intra- and interrun reproducibility was determined for rep-PCR. Overall, correct assignment to outbreak versus nonoutbreak clusters occurred for 91 of 109 isolates (85% agreement) when using a SI of 85%. For each specific outbreak, concordance between rep-PCR and PFGE ranged from 73% to 100%. There were 18 discrepant results (17%). Fourteen isolates were unique by PFGE, but they were placed in clusters by rep-PCR; the other 4 were placed in clusters different from those assigned by PFGE. Intra- and interrun reproducibility was excellent. Times to results were 12 to 24 h for rep-PCR compared to 2 to 4 days for PFGE. Rapid, standardized results and excellent reproducibility make rep-PCR a valuable tool for use in MRSA investigations. However, since rep-PCR was less discriminatory than PFGE, we recommend that it be used to screen isolates, followed by testing isolates which share the same rep-PCR pattern with a more sensitive method, such as PFGE or multilocus sequence typing.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksAnti-Bacterial AgentsAutomationBacterial Typing TechniquesCross InfectionElectrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-FieldGenome, BacterialMethicillinMethicillin ResistancePolymerase Chain ReactionRepetitive Sequences, Nucleic AcidReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcus aureusUnited StatesAnti-Bacterial AgentsMethicillin

Identifiers

PMID16272498
PMCPMC1287783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.