ArticleCurrent microbiology2010
Comparative evaluation of five culture media with triplex PCR assay for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Article in Current microbiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transmission rates, screening methods and costs of MRSA--a systematic literature review related to the prevalence in Germany.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2012Pooled it
- Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization and infection in an intensive care unit of a university hospital in China.The Journal of international medical research · 2018Article
- Differences between two clinical Staphylococcus capitis subspecies as revealed by biofilm, antibiotic resistance, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis profiling.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is responsible for nosocomial and community-acquired infections. Hence, rapid and accurate laboratory diagnosis of MRSA is a vital constituent of control measures. The present study evaluated five different methods for the identification of MRSA. A total of 207 S. aureus clinical isolates that consisted of 89 MRSA and 118 methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) strains confirmed by PCR were tested. MRSA strains were evaluated by five different methods: chromogenic MRSA agar (CMRSA), oxacillin resistance screening agar base (ORSAB), mannitol salt oxacillin agar (MSO), mannitol salt cefoxitin agar with two different concentrations of cefoxitin [4 microg/ml (MSC-4) and 6 microg/ml (MSC-6)]. The results of the different methods were compared to mecA PCR as the gold standard. MSC-6 showed only six false-positive MRSA in comparison with PCR. The sensitivities and specificities of MSC-6, MSC-4, MSO-4, ORSAB, and CMRSA were as follows: 98.9/94.9%, 100/83.1%, 89.9/87.3%, 97.8/96.6%, and 95.5/94.9%, respectively. In comparison with PCR, it was found that both MSC-6 and ORSAB were relatively the least expensive screening tests ($0.70 and $1.00, respectively). In conclusion, all methods were comparable, but MSC-6 was the least expensive medium for MRSA screening.
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.