Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23843749›Full record

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.

Blake W Buchan, Christine C Ginocchio, Ryhana Manii, Robert Cavagnolo, Preeti Pancholi, Lettie Swyers, Richard B Thomson, Christopher Anderson, Karen Kaul, Nathan A Ledeboer

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Enterococci.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Blake W BuchanDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Christine C Ginocchio
Ryhana Manii
Robert Cavagnolo
Preeti Pancholi
Lettie Swyers
Richard B Thomson
Christopher Anderson
Karen Kaul
Nathan A Ledeboer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial ProteinsBloodColony Count, MicrobialDrug Resistance, BacterialGenetic MarkersGentian VioletGram-Positive BacteriaHumansMicroarray AnalysisPhenazinesPolymerase Chain ReactionRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial ProteinsGenetic MarkersGentian VioletGram's stainPhenazines

Identifiers

PMID23843749
PMCPMC3699453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.