ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2017
Performance of three generations of Xpert MRSA in routine practice: approaching the aim?
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Advances in integrated antimicrobial resistance diagnostics: quantitative, qualitative and AI-driven approaches].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Clinical Relevance of Xpert MRSA/SA in Guiding Therapeutic Decisions for Staphylococcal Infections: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Hologic Panther Fusion MRSA Assay for the detection of MRSA in ESwab specimens obtained from nose, throat, and perineum.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Innovative and rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing systems.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2020Review
- Multicenter Evaluation of the Xpert MRSA NxG Assay for Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Nasal Swabs.Journal of clinical microbiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the performance of the Xpert MRSA assay in routine practice and its current use in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting of our hospital, since a pre-emptive isolation strategy has been applied. A total of 6473 patients were routinely screened with ESwab for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) using three generations of rapid real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Cepheid GeneXpert) over three consecutive periods of time. Performance was evaluated using broth enrichment culture as the reference method. Our results show that the last generation of Xpert MRSA (NxG) assay is more specific (99.2% vs. 97.9%) but not more sensitive (77.8% vs. 86.9%) than the third generation. Considering the low prevalence of MRSA in our hospital, we obtained an overall low positive predictive value. In conclusion, it remains difficult to abandon the reference method in routine practice considering the possible implications of an erroneous MRSA result in the ICU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28321579What 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.