Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20861339›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2010

Detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in specimens from various body sites: performance characteristics of the BD GeneOhm MRSA assay, the Xpert MRSA assay, and broth-enriched culture in an area with a low prevalence of MRSA infections.

Michael Hombach, Gaby E Pfyffer, Malgorzata Roos, Katja Lucke

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2012
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evaluation of sampling locations in pregnant women and newborns for the detection of colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Laboratory evaluation of the BD MAX MRSA assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. MRSA screening by the Xpert MRSA PCR assay: pooling samples of the nose, throat, and groin increases the sensitivity of detection without increasing the laboratory costs.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2013
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael HombachDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Center for Laboratory Medicine, Luzerner Kantonsspital Luzern, 6000 Luzern 16, Switzerland. mhombach@imm.uzh.ch
Gaby E Pfyffer
Malgorzata Roos
Katja Lucke
Luzerner Kantonsspital · CHInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Universal surveillance upon patient admission is important in reducing the transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and associated disease in hospitals. High costs for the health care system in conjunction with MRSA have promoted the development of rapid screening methods to detect MRSA carriers. This study compared two real-time PCR methods, the BD GeneOhm MRSA assay (BDGO) and the Xpert MRSA assay, with broth-enriched culture to define their performance characteristics and rapidity in an area with low MRSA prevalence. In total, 414 swabs from the nose and 389 swabs from the groin from 425 patients were tested. Of those 425 patients, 378 had swabs from both the nose and groin in parallel. Two hundred thirty-one and 194 patients were randomly assigned to the BDGO group and the Xpert MRSA group, respectively. In general, sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV) were high for the BDGO (100%, 98.5%, and 100%, respectively) and the Xpert MRSA (100%, 98.2%, and 100%, respectively), irrespective of whether or not nasal and inguinal specimens were considered alone or combined. In contrast, the positive predictive value (PPV) was lower: before the resolution of discrepant results, the PPVs for nasal and inguinal specimens alone and combined were 87.5%, 86.7%, and 82.4% for the BDGO and 91.7%, 66.7%, and 92.9% for the Xpert MRSA, respectively. After the resolution of discrepant results, PPVs were 93.8%, 93.3% and 94.1% for the BDGO and 91.7%, 88.9% and 92.9% for the Xpert MRSA, respectively. With the BDGO, 4 of 16 carriers were each identified by nasal or inguinal swabs alone, whereas in the Xpert MRSA group, 4 of 13 carriers were exclusively identified by nasal swabs and 2 of 13 were identified by inguinal swabs alone. Both PCR methods showed no significant difference in the number of discrepant results (odds ratio, 0.70 [P = 0.789]), but specimens from wounds and other body sites (axilla, vagina, and throat) produced discrepancies more often than nasal and groin specimens (odds ratios, 4.724 [P = 0.058] and 12.163 [P < 0.001], respectively). The facts that no false-negative PCR results were detected and increased PPVs were found after the resolution of discrepant results point to PCR as the actual gold standard. Since both sensitivity and NPV were exceptionally high for PCR, backup cultures may, therefore, be unnecessary in an area with low prevalence and with a preemptive isolation strategy but may still be useful for PCR-positive specimens because of the lower PPV for both methods and the possibility of susceptibility testing. The median time for analysis, including extraction, hands-on time, and actual PCR was 2 h 20 min for the Xpert MRSA versus 5 h 40 min for the BDGO. Concerning reporting time, including administration and specimen collection, the Xpert MRSA was faster than the BDGO (7 h 50 min versus 17 h).

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesGroinHumansMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusNosePolymerase Chain ReactionPredictive Value of TestsPrevalenceReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificityStaphylococcal InfectionsReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID20861339
PMCPMC3020866
OpenAlexW2167908919

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.