ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015
Comparative Evaluation of Two PCR-Based Methods for Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): Xpert MRSA Gen 3 and BD-Max MRSA XT.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the potential for specimen pooling to streamline nosocomial surveillance of methicillin-resistantMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Clinical Relevance of Xpert MRSA/SA in Guiding Therapeutic Decisions for Staphylococcal Infections: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2022Article
- Characterization of SCCAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2022Article
- A Novel Assay for Detection of Methicillin-ResistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- Detection of mecA- and mecC-Positive Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Isolates by the New Xpert MRSA Gen 3 PCR Assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Evaluation of BD Max StaphSR and BD Max MRSAXT Assays Using ESwab-Collected Specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Evolving Rapid Methicillin-resistantJournal of global infectious diseasesReview
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 two walk-away molecular diagnostic assays, the GeneXpert MRSA Gen 3 assay and the BD-Max MRSA XT assay. A total of 119 prospective swabs and 36 culture-positive samples were tested. Xpert MRSA Gen 3 had sensitivity of 95.7% and specificity of 100% versus 87.5% and 97.1% for BD-Max. The difference in agreement with the enriched culture results was significantly in favor of the Xpert assay (P < 0.02, McNemar nonparametric text).
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.