ArticleBMC microbiology2012
Clinical and microbiological characterization of Staphylococcus lugdunensis isolates obtained from clinical specimens in a hospital in China.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of coagulase-negative staphylococci with orthopedic infections detected by in-house multiplex real-time PCR.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Is Staphylococcus lugdunensis Significant in Clinical Samples?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Review
- Staphylococcus lugdunensis infections, filling in the gaps: a 3-year retrospective review from a comprehensive cancer center.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017Article
- Clinical Features, Outcomes, and Molecular Characteristics of Community- and Health Care-Associated Staphylococcus lugdunensis Infections.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Virulence factors among Staphylococcus lugdunensis are associated with infection sites and clonal spread.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2015Article
- Article
- Two coagulase-negative staphylococci emerging as potential zoonotic pathogens: wolves in sheep's clothing?Frontiers in 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral reports have associated Staphylococcus lugdunensis with the incidence of severe infection in humans; however, the frequency and prevalence of this microorganism and thus the propensity of its antimicrobial drug resistance is unknown in China. The objective of the current study was to determine the prevalence of Staphylococcus lugdunensis among six hundred and seventy non-replicate coagulase negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) isolates collected in a 12-month period from clinical specimens in the General Hospital of the People's Liberation Army in Beijing, China.
resultsFive (0.7%) of the 670 isolates of CoNS were identified as S. lugdunensis. Whereas three isolates were resistant to erythromycin, clindamycin, and penicillin and carried the ermC gene and a fourth one was resistant to cefoxitin and penicillin and carried the mecA gene, one isolate was not resistant to any of the tested antimicrobials. Pulse field gel electrophoretic analysis did not reveal widespread epidemiological diversity of the different isolates.
conclusionHence, even though S. lugdunensis may be yet unrecognized and undefined in China, it still might be the infrequent cause of infection and profound multi-drug resistance in the same population.
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.