ArticleThe Korean journal of laboratory medicine2011
Evaluation of the MicroScan MICroSTREP plus antimicrobial panel for testing β-hemolytic streptococci and viridans group streptococci.
Article in The Korean journal of laboratory medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine Immunization on Nasopharyngeal Carriage ofOpen forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Species-specific difference in antimicrobial susceptibility among viridans group streptococci.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2015Article
- The incidence of inflammation among patients suffering from cervix cancer with positive beta haemolytic streptococci cultures from genital tract.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation OncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn order to determine the clinical usefulness of the MicroScan (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, USA) MICroSTREP plus antimicrobial panel (MICroSTREP) for testing antimicrobial susceptibility of β-hemolytic streptococci (BHS) and viridans group streptococci (VGS), we compared the accuracy of MICroSTREP with that of the CLSI reference method.
methodsSeventy-five BHS and 59 VGS isolates were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility to ampicillin, penicillin, cefotaxime, meropenem, erythromycin, clindamycin, levofloxacin, and vancomycin by using MICroSTREP and the CLSI agar dilution method.
resultsThe overall essential agreement with regard to minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) (within ±1 double dilution) between MICroSTREP and the CLSI reference method was 98.2%, and categorical agreement (CA) was 96.9%. For the BHS isolates, the CA for erythromycin was 96.0%, whereas that for cefotaxime, meropenem, levofloxacin, and vancomycin (for ampicillin, penicillin, and clindamycin; 98.7%) was 100%. For the VGS isolates, the CA for penicillin was 84.7% and that for erythromycin, clindamycin, and vancomycin (for meropenem, 86.5%; for ampicillin, 88.1%; and for cefotaxime and levofloxacin, 96.6%) was 100%. All categorical errors of penicillin and ampicillin in the VGS isolates were minor.
conclusionsThe accuracy of MICroSTREP is comparable to that of the CLSI reference method, suggesting that this panel can be effective for testing antimicrobial susceptibility of BHS and VGS.
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.