ArticleInfection and drug resistance2016
Optimizing the detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with elevated vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations within the susceptible range.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Scorecard for Information Synthesis in Multiple Experimental Conditions: Application to Bacterial Biofilm Matrix Transcriptomics.Current microbiology · 2025Article
- Development of a Single-nucleotide Polymorphism Genotyping Assay for the Rapid Detection of Vancomycin-intermediate Resistance inAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Antibacterial Activity of Quinoxaline Derivative Compound Against Methicillin-ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Characterization of Multidrug-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolates and Comparison of Methods of Susceptibility to Vancomycin.Current microbiology · 2022Article
- In Vitro Activity of Vancomycin, Teicoplanin, Linezolid and Daptomycin Against Methicillin-ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2021Article
- Article
- Reporting elevated vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: consensus by an International Working Group.Future microbiology · 2019Article
- Evaluating vancomycin susceptibility inInfection and drug resistance · 2016Article
- Vancomycin plus nafcillin salvage for the treatment of persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia following daptomycin failure: a case report and literature review.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDetermination of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) can influence the agent used to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. We studied diagnostic accuracy using E-test and VITEK(®) 2 against a gold standard broth microdilution (BMD) methodology, the correlation between methods, and associations between vancomycin MIC and MRSA phenotype from clinical isolates.
methodsMRSA isolates were obtained from April 2012 to December 2013. Vancomycin MIC values were determined prospectively on all isolates by gradient diffusion E-test and automated VITEK(®) 2. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute reference BMD method was performed retrospectively on thawed frozen isolates. Diagnostic accuracy for detecting less susceptible strains was calculated at each MIC cutoff point for E-Test and VITEK(®) 2 using BMD ≥1 µg/mL as a standard. The correlation between methods was assessed using Spearman's rho (ρ). The association between MRSA phenotype and MIC for the three methods was assessed using Fisher's exact test.
resultsOf 148 MRSA isolates, all except one (E-test =3 µg/mL) were susceptible to vancomycin (MIC of ≤2 µg/mL) irrespective of methodology. MICs were ≥1.0 µg/mL for 9.5% of BMD, 50.0% for VITEK(®) 2, and 27.7% for E-test. Spearman's ρ showed weak correlations between methods: 0.29 E-test vs VITEK(®) 2 (P=0.003), 0.27 E-test vs BMD (P=0.001), and 0.31 VITEK(®) 2 vs BMD (P=0.002). The optimal cutoff points for detecting BMD-defined less susceptible strains were ≥1.0 µg/mL for E-test and VITEK(®) 2. E-test sensitivity at this cutoff point was 0.85 and specificity 0.29, while VITEK(®) 2 sensitivity and specificity were 0.62 and 0.51, respectively. Multiresistant MRSA strains tended to have higher MIC values compared to nonmultiresistant MRSA or epidemic MRSA 15 phenotypes by E-test (Fisher's exact P<0.001) and VITEK(®) 2 (Fisher's exact P<0.001).
conclusionOverall diagnostic accuracy and correlations between MIC methods used in routine diagnostic laboratories and the gold standard BMD showed limited overall agreement. This study helps optimize guidance on the effective use of vancomycin.
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.