ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2023
A multi-site, international laboratory study to assess the performance of penicillin susceptibility testing of Staphylococcus aureus.
Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05137119 (Staphylococcus Aureus Network Adaptive Platform Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Staphylococcus Aureus Network Adaptive Platform Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cefazolin for Methicillin-SusceptibleThe New England journal of medicine · 2026Trial
- Genomic Characterization and Virulence Determinants ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Staphylococcus aureus genotypic penicillin susceptibility using a blaZ qPCR directly on blood cultures shows high concordance with phenotype.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Article
- Reliability of disc diffusion testing and molecular epidemiology of penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2025Article
- Measuring beta-lactam minimum inhibitory concentrations inJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThere is clinical uncertainty over the optimal treatment for penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (PSSA) infections. Furthermore, there is concern that phenotypic penicillin susceptibility testing methods are not reliably able to detect some blaZ-positive S. aureus.
methodsNine S. aureus isolates, including six genetically diverse strains harbouring blaZ, were sent in triplicate to 34 participating laboratories from Australia (n = 14), New Zealand (n = 6), Canada (n = 12), Singapore (n = 1) and Israel (n = 1). We used blaZ PCR as the gold standard to assess susceptibility testing performance of CLSI (P10 disc) and EUCAST (P1 disc) methods. Very major errors (VMEs), major error (MEs) and categorical agreement were calculated.
resultsTwenty-two laboratories reported 593 results according to CLSI methodology (P10 disc). Nineteen laboratories reported 513 results according to the EUCAST (P1 disc) method. For CLSI laboratories, the categorical agreement and calculated VME and ME rates were 85% (508/593), 21% (84/396) and 1.5% (3/198), respectively. For EUCAST laboratories, the categorical agreement and calculated VME and ME rates were 93% (475/513), 11% (84/396) and 1% (3/198), respectively. Seven laboratories reported results for both methods, with VME rates of 24% for CLSI and 12% for EUCAST.
conclusionsThe EUCAST method with a P1 disc resulted in a lower VME rate compared with the CLSI methods with a P10 disc. These results should be considered in the context that among collections of PSSA isolates, as determined by automated MIC testing, less than 10% harbour blaZ. Furthermore, the clinical relevance of phenotypically susceptible, but blaZ-positive S. aureus, remains unclear.
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.