Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9620395›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1998

Assessment of resolution and intercenter reproducibility of results of genotyping Staphylococcus aureus by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of SmaI macrorestriction fragments: a multicenter study.

A van Belkum, W van Leeuwen, M E Kaufmann, B Cookson, F Forey, J Etienne, R Goering, F Tenover, C Steward, F O'Brien and 13 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. mec-associated dru typing in the epidemiological analysis of ST239 MRSA in Malaysia.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2011
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. External quality assessment of the molecular diagnostics and genotyping of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2010
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

A van BelkumErasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Medical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, The Netherlands. vanbelkum@bacl.azr.nl
W van Leeuwen
M E Kaufmann
B Cookson
F Forey
J Etienne
R Goering
F Tenover
C Steward
F O'Brien
W Grubb
P Tassios
N Legakis
A Morvan
N El Solh
R de Ryck
M Struelens
S Salmenlinna
J Vuopio-Varkila
M Kooistra
A Talens
W Witte
H Verbrugh

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Twenty well-characterized isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were used to study the optimal resolution and interlaboratory reproducibility of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) of DNA macrorestriction fragments. Five identical isolates (one PFGE type), 5 isolates that produced related PFGE subtypes, and 10 isolates with unique PFGE patterns were analyzed blindly in 12 different laboratories by in-house protocols. In several laboratories a standardized PFGE protocol with a commercial kit was applied successfully as well. Eight of the centers correctly identified the genetic homogeneity of the identical isolates by both the in-house and standard protocols. Four of 12 laboratories failed to produce interpretable data by the standardized protocol, due to technical problems (primarily plug preparation). With the five related isolates, five of eight participants identified the same subtype interrelationships with both in-house and standard protocols. However, two participants identified multiple strain types in this group or classified some of the isolates as unrelated isolates rather than as subtypes. The remaining laboratory failed to distinguish differences between some of the related isolates by utilizing both the in-house and standardized protocols. There were large differences in the relative genome lengths of the isolates as calculated on the basis of the gel pictures. By visual inspection, the numbers of restriction fragments and overall banding pattern similarity in the three groups of isolates showed interlaboratory concordance, but centralized computer analysis of data from four laboratories yielded percent similarity values of only 85% for the group of identical isolates. The differences between the data sets obtained with in-house and standardized protocols could be the experimental parameters which differed with respect to the brand of equipment used, imaging software, running time (20 to 48 h), and pulsing conditions. In conclusion, it appears that the standardization of PFGE depends on controlling a variety of experimental intricacies, as is the case with other bacterial typing procedures.

Indexed as

Bacterial Typing TechniquesDeoxyribonucleases, Type II Site-SpecificDNA, BacterialElectrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-FieldGenotypeHumansLaboratoriesMethicillin ResistanceQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsStaphylococcus aureusCCCGGG-specific type II deoxyribonucleasesDeoxyribonucleases, Type II Site-SpecificDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID9620395
PMCPMC104895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.