ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015
Evaluation of BD Max StaphSR and BD Max MRSAXT Assays Using ESwab-Collected Specimens.
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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Swab-and-Stain" Nanoparticle Assay for Detection of PBP2a-Expressing Methicillin-ResistantMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Culture harder: use more specimens to increase methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus culture yield relative to PCR.Access microbiology · 2025Article
- Prospective Evaluation of the BD MAX StaphSR Assay for the Screening of Methicillin-Susceptible and -ResistantInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- A Novel Assay for Detection of Methicillin-ResistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus HarboringJournal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Multicenter Evaluation of the Xpert MRSA NxG Assay for Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Nasal Swabs.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Evaluation of the BD Max StaphSR Assay for Detecting Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Methicillin-Susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) in ESwab-Collected Wound Samples.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Rapid Detection of Staphylococcus aureus and Methicillin-Resistant S. aureus in Atopic Dermatitis by Using the BD Max StaphSR Assay.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2017Article
- Comparison of ESwab and Wound Fiber Swab Specimen Collection Devices for Use with Xpert SA Nasal Complete Assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Comparison of BD Max StaphSR and BD Max MRSAXT for Screening of Staphylococcus aureus Clinical Isolates Collected from Hospitals in the United States.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Performance of BD Max StaphSR for Screening of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolates among a Contemporary and Diverse Collection from 146 Institutions Located in Nine U.S. Census Regions: Prevalence of mecA Dropout Mutants.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The BD Max MRSAXT and the BD Max StaphSR assays were validated for the detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in ESwab samples. In addition, the BD Max StaphSR assay was evaluated for its ability to detect and differentiate S. aureus and MRSA in the same sample. A total of 255 ESwab samples collected from the anterior nares of patients were tested by each of three BD Max assays, including the BD Max MRSA first-generation assay. The results were compared to those of direct and enrichment culture. Additionally, a challenge panel comprising 14 control strains was evaluated to determine the ability of these assays to correctly identify MRSA and also appropriately differentiate S. aureus by the BD Max StaphSR assay. Out of 255 clinical samples tested, 161 were negative and 30 were positive for MRSA, and 45 were positive for S. aureus (by BD Max StaphSR) and negative for MRSA by all three PCR assays and culture. Nineteen samples had discrepant results; all of them were retested by additional laboratory testing. All strains from the challenge panel were correctly identified or excluded by the BD Max MRSAXT and BD Max StaphSR assays. The results showed that the BD Max StaphSR and the BD MRSAXT assays have excellent sensitivity (94.3%) and specificity (97.7%) for detecting MRSA. The BD Max StaphSR assay demonstrated excellent sensitivity (96.4%) and specificity (93.6%) for detecting S. aureus.
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.