ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2016
Comparison of ESwab and Wound Fiber Swab Specimen Collection Devices for Use with Xpert SA Nasal Complete Assay.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of the Hologic Panther Fusion® MRSA Assay for the nasal screening of methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020Article
- Chitosan-polyvinyl alcohol nanoscale liquid film-forming system facilitates MRSA-infected wound healing by enhancing antibacterial and antibiofilm properties.International journal of nanomedicine · 2018Article
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
Paired nasal swab specimens were collected from patients who were undergoing routine methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening prior to elective cardiac or orthopedic procedures. Each patient was swabbed using a traditional wound fiber liquid Stuart swab and an ESwab device, a flocked swab with a modified liquid Amies microbiology transport medium. The two specimens were tested using the Cepheid Xpert SA Nasal Complete assay. Results demonstrated a 95.5% agreement between the ESwab and the FDA-cleared wound fiber swab collection device.
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.