Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19129414›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2009

Multicenter evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) test as a rapid screening method for detection of MRSA in nares.

D M Wolk, E Picton, D Johnson, T Davis, P Pancholi, C C Ginocchio, S Finegold, D F Welch, M de Boer, D Fuller and 4 more

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

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 157 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Dutch guideline on the laboratory detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2014
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Laboratory tools for the direct detection of bacterial respiratory infections and antimicrobial resistance: a scoping review.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Detection of Methicillin-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. High-throughput microarray for antimicrobial susceptibility testing.Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Automatic Digital Plate Reading for Surveillance Cultures.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

14 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

D M WolkThe University of Arizona/BIO5 Institute, Tucson, Arizona 85724-5059, USA. dwolk@email.arizona.edu
E Picton
D Johnson
T Davis
P Pancholi
C C Ginocchio
S Finegold
D F Welch
M de Boer
D Fuller
M C Solomon
B Rogers
M S Mehta
L R Peterson
University of Arizona · USChildren's Medical Center · USNorthShore University HealthSystem · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USNorthwell Health · USSidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital · USVA West Los Angeles Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The first U.S. multicenter clinical trial to assess the performance of the Cepheid Xpert MRSA assay (Xpert MRSA) was conducted. The assay is a qualitative test designed for the rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) directly from nares swabs. This novel test combines integrated nucleic acid extraction and automated real-time PCR for the detection of a MRSA-specific signature sequence. A total of 1,077 nares specimens were collected from seven geographically distinct health care sites across the United States with prevalence rates ranging from 5.2% to 44%. Nares specimens were tested by (i) the Xpert MRSA assay, (ii) direct culture on CHROMagar MRSA medium (direct CM culture), and (iii) broth-enriched culture (Trypticase soy broth with 6.5% sodium chloride) followed by plating onto CHROMagar MRSA medium (broth-enriched CM culture). When direct CM culture was designated the reference method, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Xpert MRSA assay were 94.3%, 93.2%, 73.0%, and 98.8%, respectively. When broth-enriched CM culture was used as the reference method, the clinical sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Xpert MRSA assay were 86.3%, 94.9%, 80.5%, and 96.6%, respectively. The BD GeneOhm MRSA (BDGO) assay was performed as a comparative molecular method. No statistical performance differences were observed between the Xpert MRSA and BDGO assays when they were compared to culture methods. From this large-scale, multicenter clinical comparison, we conclude that the Xpert MRSA assay is a simple, rapid, and accurate method for performing active surveillance for MRSA in a variety of health care populations.

Indexed as

Carrier StateDNA, BacterialHumansMass ScreeningMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusNosePolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityStaphylococcal InfectionsUnited StatesDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID19129414
PMCPMC2650940
OpenAlexW2128753931

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.