Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27330319›Full record

ArticleInfection and drug resistance2016

Optimizing the detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with elevated vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations within the susceptible range.

Cameron J Phillips, Nicholas A Wells, Marianne Martinello, Simon Smith, Richard J Woodman, David L Gordon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evaluating vancomycin susceptibility inInfection and drug resistance · 2016
    Article
  9. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Cameron J PhillipsSA Pharmacy, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, Australia; Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia; School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Nicholas A WellsSA Pathology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, Australia.
Marianne MartinelloSA Pathology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, Australia.
Simon SmithSA Pathology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, Australia.
Richard J WoodmanFlinders Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
David L GordonDepartment of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia; SA Pathology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, Australia.
Flinders Medical Centre · AUSouth Australia Pathology · AUFlinders University · AUUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

MICMRSAsensitivityspecificitysusceptibilityvancomycin

Identifiers

PMID27330319
PMCPMC4898034
OpenAlexW2419620171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.