ArticlePloS one2025
Clindamycin-resistant among Staphylococcus aureus: Investigation into phenotypic and genotypic profiles.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR), particularly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), is a pressing global health concern. These bacteria are increasingly becoming resistant to the most commonly available treatment options. As a choice, the macrolide lincosamide-streptogramin B (MLSB) is used, with clindamycin being the preferred drug. However, an alarming number of staphylococcal strains are developing resistance to MLSB. The resistance exhibits several phenotypes, including inducible MLSB (iMLSB), constitutive MLSB (cMLSB), and macrolide streptogramin B (MSB). One of the biggest challenges is the accurate detection of iMLSB in routine laboratory tests, as they appear erythromycin-resistant and clindamycin-sensitive unless the two antibiotics are placed adjacent to each other, which leads to clinical therapeutic failure.
methodTo achieve this, double disc diffusion (D test) was used to test iMLSB phenotypically. In addition, the genetic determinants were identified through singleplex PCR using specific primers to detect erm (A, B, C) and msr genes associated with the different phenotypes of MLSB resistance.
resultAmong 161 S. aureus isolates, 42 (26.1%) were erythromycin-resistant; 25 (15.5%) showed an iMLSB phenotype, and 16 (9.9%) displayed an MSB phenotype. One MRSA isolate expressing cMLSB phenotype. Genotypic analysis revealed a prevalence of ermC in 60% and msr in 40% of S. aureus isolates.
conclusionThe D-test is a reliable method for identifying inducible clindamycin resistance in clinical diagnostics, to support antibiotic use and treatment stewardship in Qatar.
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.