Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24430448›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014

Performance of SaSelect, a chromogenic medium for detection of staphylococci in clinical specimens.

Jari J Hirvonen, Anne-Marie Kerttula, Suvi-Sirkku Kaukoranta

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

3 authors.

Jari J HirvonenDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland.
Anne-Marie Kerttula
Suvi-Sirkku Kaukoranta

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a preliminary study, known staphylococcus (n = 86) and other microbial (n = 12) isolates were plated on three chromogenic media, SaSelect (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA), CHROMagar Staph. aureus (CHROMagar Microbiology, Paris, France), and S. aureus ID (bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France). The sensitivities of all the media to detect Staphylococcus aureus after 24 h of incubation were high (100.0%). However, their specificities varied at 93.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 100.0%) (CHROMagar Staph. aureus), 97.8% (95% CI, 93.5% to 100.0%) (S. aureus ID), and 100.0% (SaSelect). SaSelect also showed the highest sensitivity for recovery and differentiation of other staphylococci. As the best performing chromogenic medium, SaSelect was then prospectively compared to conventional culture and identification tests for the detection of staphylococci from 2,780 clinical specimens. A total of 1,589 staphylococcal isolates were recovered. Of these, 912 were S. aureus and 677 were other staphylococci. The sensitivity and specificity of SaSelect to detect S. aureus in clinical specimens after 24 h of incubation were 99.6% and 99.9% (95% CI, 99.2% to 100.0% and 99.8% to 100.0%), respectively, whereas the sensitivity and specificity using conventional plates combined with laboratory identification methods were 96.8% and 99.5% (95% CI, 95.7 to 97.9% and 99.2% to 99.8%). For the recovery and preliminary identification of other staphylococci, the sensitivity and specificity of SaSelect were 94.4% and 99.9%. SaSelect is a well-performing chromogenic medium that significantly improved the detection of staphylococci, especially S. aureus, compared to conventional culture (P < 0.0001).

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesChromogenic CompoundsCulture MediaHumansSensitivity and SpecificityStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcusTime FactorsChromogenic CompoundsCulture Media

Identifiers

PMID24430448
PMCPMC3993506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.