Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19261783›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2009

Staphylococcal interspersed repeat unit typing of Staphylococcus aureus: evaluation of a new multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis typing method.

Teresa Conceição, Marta Aires de Sousa, Hermínia de Lencastre

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Teresa ConceiçãoLaboratory of Molecular Genetics, Instituto de Tecnologia Química e Biológica, Oeiras, Portugal.
Marta Aires de Sousa
Hermínia de Lencastre

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study evaluates the performance of the staphylococcal interspersed repeat unit (SIRU) method applied to a diverse collection of 104 Staphylococcus aureus isolates previously characterized by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), spa typing, multilocus sequence typing (MLST), and staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec typing for methicillin-resistant S. aureus. The SIRU method distributed the 104 strains into 81 SIRU profiles that could be clustered into 12 groups and 29 singletons. The discriminatory power of the method at the profile level, translated by Simpson's index of diversity (SID), was similar to that of PFGE subtyping (SID = 99.23% versus 99.85%) and slightly higher than that of spa typing (SID = 97.61%). At the group level, the SIRU SID (93.24%) was lower than that of PFGE typing (95.41%) but higher than that of MLST (SID = 91.77%). The adjusted Rand (AR) coefficient showed that SIRU typing at the group level had the highest congruence with MLST (AR = 0.5736) and with clonal complex (CC) (AR = 0.4963) but the lowest congruence with PFGE subtype (AR = 0.0242). The Wallace coefficient indicated that in the present collection, two strains with the same SIRU profile have a 100% probability of belonging to the same CC, a 90% probability of sharing the same spa type, and an 83% probability of being classified in the same sequence type. The high discriminatory power of the SIRU method, along with its apparent concordance with MLST results, makes it potentially valuable for S. aureus short-term epidemiological investigations and population dynamics as well.

Indexed as

Minisatellite RepeatsBacterial Typing TechniquesCluster AnalysisDNA, BacterialDNA FingerprintingGenotypeHumansSensitivity and SpecificityStaphylococcus aureusDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID19261783
PMCPMC2681866

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.