ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Systematic evaluation of commercial susceptibility testing methods for determining the in vitro activity of daptomycin versus Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococci.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment outcomes of daptomycin- and vancomycin-resistantJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Leveraging patient data to detect systematic shifts in daptomycin susceptibility testing associated with reduced prescribing.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Optimizing SureQuant for Targeted Peptide Quantification: a Technical Comparison with PRM and SWATH-MS Methods.Analytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Combining CRISPRi and metabolomics for functional annotation of compound libraries.Nature chemical biology · 2022Article
- Impact of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Intervention on Within- and Between-Patient Daptomycin Resistance Evolution in Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We systematically evaluated 5 methods for testing daptomycin versus 48 Enterococcus faecalis, 51 Enterococcus faecium, and 50 Staphylococcus aureus isolates using (i and ii) broth microdilution (BMD) with 50-mg/liter calcium medium supplementation (reference method) and 30-mg/liter calcium medium supplementation (BMD30 method), (iii) Etest, and (iv and v) MicroScan panel 33 using 2 methods to prepare the bacterial inoculum (MicroScan turbidity and MicroScan Prompt). Isolates were categorized as susceptible (S) or nonsusceptible (NS) based on measured MICs. Essential (± 1 dilution) agreement (EA) and categorical (S/NS) agreement (CA) for each method were compared to the reference method. For E. faecium, categorical agreement was poor between the reference method and BMD30 as well as with the three commercial methods, with frequent false-NS results (30 for BMD30, 18 for Etest, 22 for MicroScan Prompt, and 25 for MicroScan turbidity). All E. faecalis isolates were judged to be S by the reference method; two of these isolates were categorized as NS using the BMD30 method, and one was categorized as NS by all three commercial methods. All S. aureus isolates were judged to be S using all five methods. MIC values determined by the comparator methods tended to be higher than those for the reference method, especially for E. faecium isolates. EAs between the reference BMD and BMD30, Etest, MicroScan Prompt, and MicroScan turbidity were 63%, 63%, 63%, and 56%, respectively, for E. faecium, 87%, 83%, 98%, and 80%, respectively, for E. faecalis, and all 100% for S. aureus.
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.