ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Laboratory evaluation of the BD MAX MRSA assay.
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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Rapid detection of four non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria directly from cystic fibrosis patient's respiratory samples on the BD MAX™ system.Practical laboratory medicine · 2018Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Two PCR-Based Methods for Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): Xpert MRSA Gen 3 and BD-Max MRSA XT.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Comparison of time-motion analysis of conventional stool culture and the BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel (EBP).BMC clinical pathology · 2015Article
- Evaluation of the BD Max MRSA XT assay for use with different swab types.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A comparison between the BD MAX MRSA and Xpert MRSA assays was performed using 239 nares samples. A 97.9% overall agreement between the two molecular assays was observed. The BD MAX MRSA assay proved to be a reliable alternative for a highly automated system to detect methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in patient nares samples.
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.