ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Performance of SaSelect, a chromogenic medium for detection of staphylococci in clinical specimens.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cultivation of common bacterial species and strains from human skin, oral, and gut microbiota.BMC microbiology · 2021Article
- Article
- A Decade of Development of Chromogenic Culture Media for Clinical Microbiology in an Era of Molecular Diagnostics.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.