ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
Can the Xpert MRSA/SA BC assay be used as an antimicrobial stewardship tool? A prospective assay validation and descriptive impact assessment study in a South African setting.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Innovations to Combat Antibiotic Resistance in Critical Care: Tools for Targeted Therapy and Stewardship.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Bloodstream Infections: Comparison of Diagnostic Methods and Therapeutic Consequences between a Hospital in a Resource-Limited Setting and Two French Hospitals.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Rapid and Simple Approaches for Diagnosis ofPolish journal of microbiology · 2022Review
- Clinical Relevance of Xpert MRSA/SA in Guiding Therapeutic Decisions for Staphylococcal Infections: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2022Article
- Molecular Methodologies for Improved Polymicrobial Sepsis Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Current molecular approach for diagnosis of MRSA: a meta-narrative review.Drug target insightsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPositive blood cultures showing Gram positive cocci in clusters signifies either Staphylococcus aureus or the less-virulent coagulase-negative staphylococci. Rapid identification and methicillin susceptibility determination with the Xpert MRSA/SA BC assay can improve management of S. aureus bloodstream infection and reduce inappropriate antibiotic use.
methodsWe prospectively evaluated the Xpert MRSA/SA BC assay in comparison with culture, on samples referred to our laboratory in the Western Cape, South Africa. We interviewed attending clinicians upon culture result availability, to assess antibiotic choices and estimate potential impact of the assay.
resultsOf the 231 samples included, there was 100% concordance between the Xpert MRSA/SA BC assay and culture (methicillin-resistant S. aureus 15/15, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus 42/42, coagulase-negative staphylococci 170/170). Time to final result could be reduced by approximately 30 h with the assay. Of the 178 patients with adequate antibiotic history, optimisation of antistaphylococcal therapy could have occurred more than 1 day sooner in 68.9% with S. aureus bloodstream infection (31/45, 95% CI 53.2-81.4%). Six of the 11 patients with methicillin-resistant S. aureus bloodstream infection (54.5%) could have received anti-MRSA cover sooner. Fifty-four days of antibiotic therapy could have been spared, equating to 0.3 days (95% CI, 0.2-0.4) saved per patient, driven by broad-spectrum beta-lactams (32 days, in 18.0% of the cohort).
conclusionThis assay has potential as an antimicrobial stewardship tool; costing and impact on clinical outcome in patients with S. aureus bloodstream infection should be assessed.
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.