ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1999
Dissemination of two methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clones exhibiting negative staphylase reactions in intensive care units.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular detection of methicillin heat-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains in pasteurized camel milk in Saudi Arabia.Bioscience reports · 2020Article
- Article
- Methicillin (Oxacillin)-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from major food animals and their potential transmission to humans.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2003Article
- A Shared noncapsular antigen is responsible for false-positive reactions by Staphylococcus epidermidis in commercial agglutination tests for Staphylococcus aureus.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2001Article
- PCR assay for species-specific identification of Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2000Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From December 1997 to March 1998, 25 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates exhibiting negative Staphylase (Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, England) reactions were identified from various clinical specimens from 13 patients in six intensive care units (ICUs) or in wards following a stay in an ICU at the National Taiwan University Hospital. The characteristics of these isolates have not been previously noted in other MRSA isolates from this hospital. Colonies of all these isolates were grown on Trypticase soy agar supplemented with 5% sheep blood and were nonhemolytic and unpigmented. Seven isolates, initially reported as Staphylococcus haemolyticus (5 isolates) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (2 isolates) by the routine identification scheme and with the Vitek GPI system (bioMerieux Vitek, Inc., Hazelwood, Mo.), were subsequently identified as S. aureus by positive tube coagulase tests, standard biochemical reactions, and characteristic cellular fatty acid chromatograms. The antibiotypes obtained by the E test, coagulase types, restriction fragment length polymorphism profiles of the staphylococcal coagulase gene, and random amplified polymorphic DNA patterns generated by arbitrarily primed PCR of the isolates disclosed that two major clones disseminated in the ICUs. Clone 1 (16 isolates) was resistant to clindamycin and was susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMZ) and was coagulase type II. Clone 2 (eight isolates) was resistant to clindamycin and TMP-SMZ and was coagulase type IV. These two epidemic clones from ICUs are unique and underline the need for caution in identifying MRSA strains with colonial morphologies not of the typical type and with negative Staphylase reactions.
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.