ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2006
External quality assessment of molecular typing of Staphylococcus aureus isolates by a network of laboratories.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2006. 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.
- Antimicrobial Resistance, SCCAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Distribution of the Most PrevalentFrontiers in microbiology · 2018Review
- Comparison of Haemophilus parasuis reference strains and field isolates by using random amplified polymorphic DNA and protein profiles.BMC microbiology · 2012Article
- Cross-border dissemination of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Euregio Meuse-Rhin region.Emerging infectious diseases · 2009Article
- Comparison of single- and multilocus sequence typing and toxin gene profiling for characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2007Article
- Validation of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and spa typing for long-term, nationwide epidemiological surveillance studies of Staphylococcus aureus infections.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2007Article
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
A network of laboratories designated Centres for Molecular Diagnosis was funded in 2000 by Belgian National Health Insurance to provide clinically relevant molecular diagnostic tests. These included typing of nosocomial pathogens as a service to local hospital infection control programs. Two external quality assessment (EQA) surveys were performed in 2001 and 2003 to evaluate the proficiencies of the laboratories at Staphylococcus aureus typing. EQA panels included S. aureus isolates with either indistinguishable, clonally related, or unrelated pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) patterns. A hypothetical hospital outbreak problem was also submitted for analysis. Typeability, reproducibility, discrimination (D) index, and epidemiological concordance were evaluated. Ten centers participated in each survey. Seven centers performed PFGE analysis, while others used repetitive-element or randomly amplified polymorphic DNA PCR, amplified fragment length polymorphism, or spa typing. Full typeability (100%) was achieved by all centers, and all but one showed 100% reproducibility. Discrimination was appropriate (D index, >or=96%) for centers performing PFGE analysis but not for all those using other methods (D index range, 72% to 97%). Correct answers to the epidemiological questions were provided by 7/10 and 10/10 centers in 2001 and 2003, respectively. Individual feedback of results was provided to each center together with specific technical recommendations for improving performance. Our findings indicate that surveys of lab proficiency are useful for validation and optimization of molecular typing services to local hospital infection control programs.
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.