ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2022
Clinical Relevance of Xpert MRSA/SA in Guiding Therapeutic Decisions for Staphylococcal Infections: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Analysis.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRapid identification of the causal organism and antibiotic resistance is crucial for guiding targeted therapy in patients with suspected staphylococcal infection. A meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate the diagnostic relevance of Xpert™ MRSA/SA (Xpert) from clinical samples of various origins for limiting the use of unnecessary empirical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) therapy.
methodsFive databases, including the Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase, were comprehensively inspected from inception to October 12, 2021. The pooled summary estimates were evaluated using a bivariate random-effects model.
resultsOur inclusion criteria were met by 49 publications containing 68 datasets out of 735 citations. A total of 21 studies (n = 4996) examined the accuracy of Xpert in detecting methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA), while 47 studies (n = 45,430) examined the accuracy of Xpert in detecting MRSA. As compared to MRSA, Xpert's diagnostic performance for MSSA detection was markedly higher [sensitivity: 0.97 (0.96-0.98), specificity: 0.97 (0.97-0.98), area under curve (AUC): 0.99 (0.99-1.0)]. Xpert's pooled sensitivity and specificity differed marginally across sample types, including screening of colonization, lower respiratory tract (LRT), osteoarticular, and bloodstream samples. Notably, the Xpert pooled specificity was consistently ≥ 92% against microbiological culture across all sample types. The diagnostic efficiency heterogeneity was not explained by a meta-regression and subgroup analysis of research design, sample conditions, and sampling methods (P > 0.05).
conclusionOur findings suggest that Xpert could be used as the favoured screening test for the early detection of staphylococcal infection in a variety of sample types, with the goal of guiding therapeutic decisions.
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.