Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26311860›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015

Screening for Intermediately Vancomycin-Susceptible and Vancomycin-Heteroresistant Staphylococcus aureus by Use of Vancomycin-Supplemented Brain Heart Infusion Agar Biplates: Defining Growth Interpretation Criteria Based on Gold Standard Confirmation.

Riad Khatib, Kathleen Riederer, Mamta Sharma, Stephen Shemes, Sugantha P Iyer, Susan Szpunar

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 90% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Vancomycin heteroresistance inFuture science OA · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Nasal Carriage byInterdisciplinary perspectives on infectious diseases · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Riad KhatibSt. John Hospital and Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, USA Riad.khatib@stjohn.org.
Kathleen RiedererSt. John Hospital and Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Mamta SharmaSt. John Hospital and Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Stephen ShemesSt. John Hospital and Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Sugantha P IyerSt. John Hospital and Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Susan SzpunarSt. John Hospital and Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
St. John Hospital & Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BHI agars supplemented with vancomycin 4 (BHI-V4) and 3 (BHI-V3) mg/liter have been proposed for screening vancomycin intermediately susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (VISA) and heteroresistant (hVISA) phenotypes, respectively, but growth interpretation criteria have not been established. We reviewed the growth results (CFU) during population analysis profile-area under the curve (PAP-AUC) of consecutive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) blood isolates, which were saved intermittently between 1996 and 2012. CFU counts on BHI-V4 and BHI-V3 plates were stratified according to PAP-AUC interpretive criteria: <0.90 (susceptible [S-MRSA]), 0.90 to 1.3 (hVISA), and >1.3 (VISA). CFU cutoffs that best predict VISA and hVISA were determined with the use of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Mu3, Mu50, and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) controls were included. We also prospectively evaluated manufacturer-made BHI-V3/BHI-V4 biplates for screening of 2010-2012 isolates. The PAP-AUC of 616 clinical samples was consistent with S-MRSA, hVISA, and VISA in 550 (89.3%), 48 (7.8%), and 18 (2.9%) instances, respectively. For VISA screening on BHI-V4, a cutoff of 2 CFU/droplet provided 100% sensitivity and 97.7% specificity. To distinguish VISA from hVISA, a cutoff of 16 CFU provided 83.3% sensitivity and 94.7% specificity; the specificity was lowered to 89.5% with a 12-CFU cutoff. For detecting hVISA/VISA on BHI-V3, a 2-CFU/droplet cutoff provided 98.5% sensitivity and 93.8% specificity. These results suggest that 2-CFU/droplet cutoffs on BHI-V4 and BHI-V3 best approximate VISA and hVISA gold standard confirmation, respectively, with minimal overlap in samples with borderline PAP-AUC. Simultaneous screening for VISA/hVISA on manufacturer-made BHI-V4/BHI-V3 biplates is easy to standardize and may reduce the requirement for PAP-AUC confirmation.

Indexed as

AgarAnti-Bacterial AgentsCulture MediaHumansMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsStaphylococcal InfectionsVancomycinVancomycin ResistanceAgarAnti-Bacterial AgentsCulture MediaVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID26311860
PMCPMC4609695
OpenAlexW2224315854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.