ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2011
False-negative test results in the Slidex Staph Plus (bioMérieux) agglutination test are mainly caused by spa-type t001 and t001-related strains.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- False positive results obtained with latex agglutination identification of Staphylococcus aureus caused by Macrococcus caseolyticus and Mammaliicoccus fleurettii.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of species-specific score cutoff values of routinely isolated clinically relevant bacteria using a direct smear preparation for matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry-based bacterial identification.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The relative sensitivity of commercial agglutination kits for fast identification of S. aureus is usually given to be about 98%. This reported sensitivity has sometimes been questioned. In this study, three collections of molecularly defined, single-copy strains of S. aureus were used to compare the sensitivities of agglutination-based identification and the MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry-based identification using the Biotyper 2.0 database to a molecularly defined reference method. Clinical isolates (n = 363) of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and 240 clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) were included. In order to rule out a predominance of local MRSA-strains, a collection of 104 pulsed-field-gel electrophoresis divergent MRSA strains were also tested. MALDI-TOF MS using Biotyper database (Bruker) identified all isolates, whereas the Slidex Staph Plus (bioMérieux) detected only 98.0% of the MSSA, 94.5% of the MRSA and only 70.1% of the MRSA of the molecularly divergent strain collection. Interestingly, strains with a false-negative test result in the agglutination methods were mostly spa-type t001 and t001 related. The MALDI-TOF MS based identification can thus be used as an alternative identification method for suspected false-negative results from the agglutination tests, especially if the local prevalence of t001 and t001 related strains is high.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20936317What 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.