ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Novel selective medium for isolation of Staphylococcus lugdunensis from wound 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Staphylococcus aureus-antagonizing human nasal commensal Staphylococcus lugdunensis depends on siderophore piracy.Microbiome · 2024Article
- The identification of gifted underachievement: Validity evidence for the commonly used methods.The British journal of educational psychology · 2022Review
- Staphylococcus lugdunensis: a Skin Commensal with Invasive Pathogenic Potential.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2021Review
- Emergence of ileS2-Carrying, Multidrug-Resistant Plasmids in Staphylococcus lugdunensis.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared a novel selective Staphylococcus lugdunensis (SSL) medium with routine media (blood and chocolate agars) for the detection of S. lugdunensis in 990 clinical specimens (from tissue, pus, or wound swabs). Significantly more S. lugdunensis isolates were detected on SSL medium (34/990) than on routine medium (7/990) (P = 0.001, McNemar's test).
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.