ArticlePLoS medicine2013
Multiplex identification of gram-positive bacteria and resistance determinants directly from positive blood culture broths: evaluation of an automated microarray-based nucleic acid test.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 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
48 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance evaluation of a commercial multiplex pathogen panel for the diagnosis of pediatric joint infections.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Multiplex microarray PCR Unyvero BCU system to accelerate relevant antimicrobial treatment in polymicrobial bloodstream infection.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Article
- Difficult-to-Treat Pathogens: A Review on the Management of Multidrug-ResistantLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Reporting of Antimicrobial Resistance from Blood Cultures, an Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Survey Summary: Resistance Marker Reporting Practices from Positive Blood Cultures.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Article
- Clinical evaluation of polymerase chain reaction coupled with quantum dot fluorescence analysis in the identification of bacteria and yeasts in patients with suspected bloodstream infections.Microbial biotechnology · 2023Article
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Enterococci.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022Review
- Article
- Multicenter Evaluation of the Acuitas AMR Gene Panel for Detection of an Extended Panel of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes among Bacterial Isolates.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022Article
- Nanotechnology Fundamentals Applied to Clinical Infectious Diseases and Public Health.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Review
- Identification and Antibiotic Susceptibility Patterns of Clinical Blood Culture Isolates Not Identified by a Rapid Microarray Diagnostic System.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Observational
- The Genotype-to-Phenotype Dilemma: How Should Laboratories Approach Discordant Susceptibility Results?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Review
- Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods for Blood Cultures and Their Clinical Impact.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Successfully treated infected aneurysm caused byIDCases · 2021Article
- New Microbiological Techniques for the Diagnosis of Bacterial Infections and Sepsis in ICU Including Point of Care.Current infectious disease reports · 2021Review
- Clinical Performance of the Novel GenMark Dx ePlex Blood Culture ID Gram-Positive Panel.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of Two Methods for the Detection of Third Generation Cephalosporins Resistant Enterobacterales Directly From Positive Blood Cultures.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Article
- Diagnosing and Managing Sepsis by Probing the Host Response to Infection: Advances, Opportunities, and Challenges.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Review
- Identification and Antibiotic-Susceptibility Profiling of Infectious Bacterial Agents: A Review of Current and Future Trends.Biotechnology journal · 2019Review
- Article
- Clinical Evaluation of the iCubate iC-GPC Assay for Detection of Gram-Positive Bacteria and Resistance Markers from Positive Blood Cultures.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of the Verigene Gram-Positive Blood Culture Test (BC-GP) test to identify 12 Gram-positive bacterial gene targets and three genetic resistance determinants directly from positive blood culture broths containing Gram-positive bacteria. METHODS AND
findings1,252 blood cultures containing Gram-positive bacteria were prospectively collected and tested at five clinical centers between April, 2011 and January, 2012. An additional 387 contrived blood cultures containing uncommon targets (e.g., Listeria spp., S. lugdunensis, vanB-positive Enterococci) were included to fully evaluate the performance of the BC-GP test. Sensitivity and specificity for the 12 specific genus or species targets identified by the BC-GP test ranged from 92.6%-100% and 95.4%-100%, respectively. Identification of the mecA gene in 599 cultures containing S. aureus or S. epidermidis was 98.6% sensitive and 94.3% specific compared to cefoxitin disk method. Identification of the vanA gene in 81 cultures containing Enterococcus faecium or E. faecalis was 100% sensitive and specific. Approximately 7.5% (87/1,157) of single-organism cultures contained Gram-positive bacteria not present on the BC-GP test panel. In 95 cultures containing multiple organisms the BC-GP test was in 71.6% (68/95) agreement with culture results. Retrospective analysis of 107 separate blood cultures demonstrated that identification of methicillin resistant S. aureus and vancomycin resistant Enterococcus spp. was completed an average of 41.8 to 42.4 h earlier using the BC-GP test compared to routine culture methods. The BC-GP test was unable to assign mecA to a specific organism in cultures containing more than one Staphylococcus isolate and does not identify common blood culture contaminants such as Micrococcus, Corynebacterium, and Bacillus.
conclusionsThe BC-GP test is a multiplex test capable of detecting most leading causes of Gram-positive bacterial blood stream infections as well as genetic markers of methicillin and vancomycin resistance directly from positive blood cultures.
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.