ArticleActa veterinaria Scandinavica1991
Comparison of three commercial rapid agglutination test kits for identification of coagulase positive staphylococci from foods and animals.
Article in Acta veterinaria Scandinavica, 1991. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three rapid agglutination assays for the identification of Staphylococcus aureus Monostaph (Bionor A/S, Skien, Norway), Staphyslide-Test (BioMerieux, Lyon, France) and Staph-Rapid-Test (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), were compared. A total of 104 Gram-positive, catalase positive cocci were tested: Nineteen Staphylococcus reference strains comprising 15 spp. (4 strains were coagulase positive), and 7 Micrococcus reference strains comprising 4 spp.; 22 food isolates comprising 13 S. aureus, 8 coagulase positive Staphylococcus spp., and 1 Micrococcus sp.; 56 animal isolates comprising 11 S. aureus, 9 S. hyicus subsp. hyicus, 2 S. intermedius, 15 coagulase positive and 19 coagulase negative Staphylococcus spp. Totally 54 strains were coagulase positive. Considering agglutination of a coagulase positive strain as a correct identification, Monostaph, Staph-Rapid-Test, and Staphyslide-Test correctly identified 52 (96.3%), 47 (87.0%) and 48 (89.0%) of the coagulase positive staphylococci, respectively. Monostaph, Staph-Rapid-Test and Staphyslide-Test showed 1 (2.0%), 4 (8.0%) and 4 (8.0%) false positive reactions respectively. Monostaph, Staph-Rapid-Test and Staphyslide-Test gave 0 (0.0%), 6 (5.8%) and 7 (6.7%) non-interpretable reactions, respectively. Monostaph may be a good alternative to the tube-coagulase test for rapid and reliable identification of coagulase positive staphylococci from both food and veterinary sources. However, false negative reactions may occur with coagulase positive strains of S. hyicus subsp. hyicus and S. intermedius.
Indexed as
Identifiers
1803928PMC8127877W2414048862What 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.