ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2017
Evaluation of BD MAX Staph SR Assay for Differentiating Between Staphylococcus aureus and Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci and Determining Methicillin Resistance Directly From Positive Blood Cultures.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Detection of Pathogens and Resistance Genes Grown in Blood Cultures with Two Multiplex Tandem Real-Time PCR Kits.Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Prospective Evaluation of the BD MAX StaphSR Assay for the Screening of Methicillin-Susceptible and -ResistantInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Using Protein Fingerprinting for Identifying and Discriminating Methicillin ResistantDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Detection of Methicillin-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Reliability ofOpen forum infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Article
- Rapid Detection of Staphylococcus aureus and Methicillin-Resistant S. aureus in Atopic Dermatitis by Using the BD Max StaphSR Assay.Annals of laboratory medicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe evaluated the performance of the BD MAX StaphSR Assay (SR assay; BD, USA) for direct detection of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin resistance not only in S. aureus but also in coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CNS) from positive blood cultures.
methodsFrom 228 blood culture bottles, 103 S. aureus [45 methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), 55 methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), 3 mixed infections (1 MRSA+Enterococcus faecalis, 1 MSSA+MRCNS, 1 MSSA+MSCNS)], and 125 CNS (102 MRCNS, 23 MSCNS) were identified by Vitek 2. For further analysis, we obtained the cycle threshold (Ct) values from the BD MAX system software to determine an appropriate cutoff value. For discrepancy analysis, conventional mecA/mecC PCR and oxacillin minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined.
resultsCompared to Vitek 2, the SR assay identified all 103 S. aureus isolates correctly but failed to detect methicillin resistance in three MRSA isolates. All 55 MSSA isolates were correctly identified by the SR assay. In the concordant cases, the highest Ct values for nuc, mecA, and mec right-extremity junction (MREJ) were 25.6, 22, and 22.2, respectively. Therefore, we selected Ct values from 0-27 as a range of positivity, and applying this cutoff, the sensitivity/specificity of the SR assay were 100%/100% for detecting S. aureus, and 97.9%/98.1% and 99.0%/95.8% for detecting methicillin resistance in S. aureus and CNS, respectively.
conclusionsWe propose a Ct cutoff value for nuc/mec assay without considering MREJ because mixed cultures of MSSA and MRCNS were very rare (0.4%) in the positive blood cultures.
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.