ArticleCurrent microbiology2010
Comparison of real-time PCR with disk diffusion, agar screen and E-test methods 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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Staphylococcus aureus Isolates Carrying Panton-Valentine Leucocidin Genes: Their Frequency, Antimicrobial Patterns, and Association With Infectious Disease in Shahrekord City, Southwest Iran.Jundishapur journal of microbiology · 2016Article
- Detection of mecA and enterotoxin genes in Staphylococcus aureus isolates associated with bovine mastitis and characterization of Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) in MRSA strains.Iranian journal of microbiology · 2015Article
- Epidemiology of mecA-Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2012Article
- Rapid detection of live methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by using an integrated microfluidic system capable of ethidium monoazide pre-treatment and molecular diagnosis.Biomicrofluidics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a nosocomial pathogen. Our main objective was to compare oxacillin disk test, oxacillin E-test, and oxacillin agar screen for detection of methicillin resistance in S. aureus, using real-time PCR for mecA as the "gold standard" comparison assay. 196 S. aureus isolates were identified out of 284 Staphylococcus isolates. These isolates were screened for MRSA with several methods: disk diffusion, agar screen (6.0 μg/ml), oxacillin E-test, and real-time PCR for detection of mecA gene. Of the 196 S. aureus isolates tested, 96 isolates (49%) were mecA-positive and 100 isolates (51%) mecA-negative. All methods tested had a statistically significant agreement with real-time PCR. E-test was 100% sensitive and specific for mecA presence. The sensitivity and specificity of oxacillin agar screen method were 98 and 99%, respectively and sensitivity and specificity of oxacillin disk diffusion method were 95 and 93%, respectively. In the present study, oxacillin E-test is proposed as the best phenotypic method. For economic reasons, the oxacillin agar screen method (6.0 μg/ml), which is suitable for the detection of MRSA, is recommended due to its accuracy and low cost.
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.