Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24648560›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014

Systematic evaluation of commercial susceptibility testing methods for determining the in vitro activity of daptomycin versus Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococci.

Thomas J Kirn, Elizabeth Onyeaso, Madiha Syed, Melvin P Weinstein

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Thomas J KirnDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA Department of Medicine (Infectious Disease), Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA kirntj@rutgers.edu.
Elizabeth OnyeasoDepartment of Medicine (Infectious Disease), Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Madiha SyedDepartment of Medicine (Infectious Disease), Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Melvin P WeinsteinDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA Department of Medicine (Infectious Disease), Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Anti-Bacterial AgentsClinical Laboratory TechniquesDaptomycinEnterococcus faecalisEnterococcus faeciumHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsStaphylococcus aureusAnti-Bacterial AgentsDaptomycin

Identifiers

PMID24648560
PMCPMC4042769

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.