ArticleMedscape journal of medicine2008
Rapid identification of methicillin-resistant staphylococci bacteremia among intensive care unit patients.
Article in Medscape journal of medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Practices To Increase Timeliness of Providing Targeted Therapy for Inpatients with Bloodstream Infections: a Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Evaluation of direct tube coagulase test in diagnosing staphylococcal bacteremia.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2014Article
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
Staphylococci represent the most commonly encountered blood culture isolates. With the spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci (MRCoNS) in hospitals, rapid and reliable methods for their detection are warranted in order to provide choice of appropriate antimicrobial therapy. This study evaluated 4 rapid methods directly from positive blood cultures in parallel with each other (on the same day) for identification of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal isolates, in addition to antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), to compare the workflow for each test and to reduce the turnaround time (TAT) in order to be presented as practical applications in our microbiology laboratory. A total of 56 bacteremic patients' blood cultures with Gram stains showing gram-positive cocci (GPC) in clusters were included. The following direct assays were evaluated: direct tube coagulase (DTC) test, analytical profile index (API)-Staph kit for species identification coupled with antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), latex agglutination for detection of PBP2a (PBP2a LA Assay), and cefoxitin disk diffusion assay. The direct results were compared with results obtained with isolated colonies using standard methods as well as detection of the mecA gene by PCR. DTC and API-staph exhibited sensitivities of 96% and 96.8% and specificity of 100% for direct identification of staphylococcal isolates. Both PBP2a LA and cefoxitin DD assays exhibited sensitivity of 100% for detection of both MRSA and MRCoNS and specificities of 100% and 75% (PBP2a assay) and 90% and 100% (cefoxitin DD) for identification of methicillin-sensitive isolates, respectively. For direct antimicrobial susceptibility testing (DAST), the overall error rate was 1.11%. In conclusion, direct identification and susceptibility testing by any of these assays yielded acceptable performance and timely results - 24 hours earlier than routine subculture - and can be easily incorporated into routine processing of positive blood cultures to improve the outcomes for the patient and the costs to hospitals. Therefore, it is recommended to use the method with high sensitivity and the shortest TAT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18596947PMC2438486W1536011542What 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.