ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2020
Performance of the Hologic Panther Fusion® MRSA Assay for the nasal screening of methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2020. 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.
- [Advances in integrated antimicrobial resistance diagnostics: quantitative, qualitative and AI-driven approaches].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Recent Developments in Phenotypic and Molecular Diagnostic Methods for Antimicrobial Resistance Detection inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Staphylococcus aureus (SA) nasal carriage screening is usually based on either culture or molecular biology. The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of the Panther Fusion® MRSA Assay (PF) that proposes a complete automation of the molecular screening for MSSA and MRSA carriage. Four hundred thirty-four nasal samples collected on ESwab™ were screened using PF. Results were compared with standard culture on BBL™ CHROMagar™ Staph aureus and chromID® MRSA agar. Discordant results were analyzed with additional techniques: Xpert SA Nasal Complete on GeneXpert (GX), culture on selective agar after 24 h in broth enrichment, and, if necessary, characterization of mec gene and SCCmec cassette using DNA microarray. The PF presented an overall agreement of 97.5% for SA detection and 97.9% for MRSA detection. Furthermore, 7.1% (31/434) of the samples were SA-negative in primary culture but SA-positive using PF and GX, confirming the greater sensitivity of molecular tests compared with culture. Of note, 4 out of 30 MRSA-positive samples were not detected due to an atypical SCCmec cassette, while 2 samples were falsely detected as MRSA due to co-colonization with a MSSA drop-out strain and a methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococcal strain. Considering all results, the PF instrument appears as a reliable and rapid (< 3 h) package for MSSA/MRSA nasal screening. This technology using random access capability and direct sampling of the primary container is innovative and corresponds therefore to a new step in complete molecular biology automation in bacteriology.
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.