ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013
Controlled multicenter evaluation of a bacteriophage-based method for rapid detection of Staphylococcus aureus in positive blood cultures.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bacteriophages as a modern diagnostic tool: innovations, applications and challenges.Molecular biology reports · 2025Review
- CRISPR-Cas9 enables efficient genome engineering of the strictly lytic, broad-host-range staphylococcal bacteriophage K.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Bacteriophage therapy- a refurbished age-old potential strategy to treat antibiotic and multidrug resistant bacterial infections in future.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2024Article
- Bacteriophage-Based Detection ofViruses · 2022Article
- Reporter Phage-Based Detection of Bacterial Pathogens: Design Guidelines and Recent Developments.Viruses · 2020Review
- Article
- Phage-Mediated Molecular Detection (PMMD): A Novel Rapid Method for Phage-Specific Bacterial Detection.Viruses · 2020Article
- A novel flow cytometry assay based on bacteriophage-derived proteins for Staphylococcus detection in blood.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Identification and Antibiotic-Susceptibility Profiling of Infectious Bacterial Agents: A Review of Current and Future Trends.Biotechnology journal · 2019Review
- Emerging Microtechnologies and Automated Systems for Rapid Bacterial Identification and Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing.SLAS technology · 2017Article
- Highly Sensitive Bacteriophage-Based Detection of Brucella abortus in Mixed Culture and Spiked Blood.Viruses · 2017Article
- Strain-level Staphylococcus differentiation by CeO2-metal oxide laser ionization mass spectrometry fatty acid profiling.BMC microbiology · 2016Article
- Rapid antibiotic-resistance predictions from genome sequence data for Staphylococcus aureus and Mycobacterium tuberculosis.Nature communications · 2015Article
- Rapid Detection of Listeria by Bacteriophage Amplification and SERS-Lateral Flow Immunochromatography.Viruses · 2015Article
- Bacteriophage-based latex agglutination test for rapid identification of Staphylococcus aureus.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
- Biographical feature: Melvin P. Weinstein, M.D.Journal of clinical 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Staphylococci are a frequent cause of bloodstream infections (BSIs). Appropriate antibiotic treatment for BSIs may be delayed because conventional laboratory testing methods take 48 to 72 h to identify and characterize isolates from positive blood cultures. We evaluated a novel assay based on bacteriophage amplification that identifies Staphylococcus aureus and differentiates between methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MSSA and MRSA, respectively) in samples taken directly from signal-positive Bactec blood culture bottles within 24 h of positive signal, with results available within 5 h. The performance of the MicroPhage KeyPath MRSA/MSSA blood culture test was compared to conventional identification and susceptibility testing methods. At four sites, we collectively tested a total of 1,165 specimens, of which 1,116 were included in our analysis. Compared to standard methods, the KeyPath MRSA/MSSA blood culture test demonstrated a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 91.8%, 98.3%, 96.3%, and 96.1%, respectively, for correctly identifying S. aureus. Of those correctly identified as S. aureus (n = 334), 99.1% were correctly categorized as either MSSA or MRSA. Analysis of a subset of the data revealed that the KeyPath MRSA/MSSA blood culture test delivered results a median of 30 h sooner than conventional methods (a median of 46.9 h versus a median of 16.9 h). Although the sensitivity of the test in detecting S. aureus-positive samples is not high, its accuracy in determining methicillin resistance and susceptibility among positives is very high. These characteristics may enable earlier implementation of appropriate antibiotic treatment for many S. aureus BSI patients.
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.