ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Evaluation of the BD Max MRSA XT assay for use with different swab types.
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Culture harder: use more specimens to increase methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus culture yield relative to PCR.Access microbiology · 2025Article
- Liquid and Dry Swabs for Culture- and PCR-Based Detection of Colonization with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus during Admission Screening.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the BD Max StaphSR Assay for Rapid Identification of Staphylococcus aureus and Methicillin-Resistant S. aureus in Positive Blood Culture Broths.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Evaluation of BD Max StaphSR and BD Max MRSAXT Assays Using ESwab-Collected Specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- 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
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the performance of the BD Max MRSA XT assay for use with different swab types. The 90% detection rates (95% confidence intervals) were 387 (97 to 1,551), 877 (238 to 3,230), 986 (183 to 5,287), 1,292 (328 to 5,078), 2,400 (426 to 13,518), and 5,848 (622 to 55,021) CFU/swab for Liquid Stuart, Liquid Amies, dry, Amies Gel without charcoal, ESwab collection, and Amies gel with charcoal swabs (Becton Dickinson), respectively. Amies Gel without charcoal, ESwab collection, and Amies gel with charcoal swabs had a tendency to be less sensitive, but none of the differences was statistically significant.
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.