ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2016
Comparative evaluation of two fully-automated real-time PCR methods for MRSA admission screening in a tertiary-care hospital.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multicenter Evaluation of the Xpert MRSA NxG Assay for Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Nasal Swabs.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Underestimation of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA and MSSA) carriage associated with standard culturing techniques: One third of carriers missed.Bone & joint research · 2018Article
- Evaluation of the novel artus C. difficile QS-RGQ, VanR QS-RGQ and MRSA/SA QS-RGQ assays for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), and for vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated two fully-automated real-time PCR systems, the novel QIAGEN artus MRSA/SA QS-RGQ and the widely used BD MAX MRSA assay, for their diagnostic performance in MRSA admission screening in a tertiary-care university hospital. Two hundred sixteen clinical swabs were analyzed for MRSA DNA using the BD MAX MRSA assay. In parallel, the same specimens were tested with the QIAGEN artus MRSA/SA QS-RGQ. Automated steps included lysis of bacteria, DNA extraction, real-time PCR and interpretation of results. MRSA culture was additionally performed as a reference method for MRSA detection. Sensitivity values were similar for both assays (80 %), while the QIAGEN artus MRSA/SA QS-RGQ reached a slightly higher specificity (95.8 % versus 90.0 %). Positive (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) were 17.4 % and 99.4 % for the BD MAX MRSA assay and 33.3 % and 99.5 % for the QIAGEN artus MRSA/SA QS-RGQ, respectively. Total turn-around time (TAT) for 24 samples was 3.5 hours for both assays. In conclusion, both assays represent reliable diagnostic tools due to their high negative predictive values, especially for the rapid identification of MRSA negative patients in a low prevalence MRSA area.
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.