Evaluation of the LightCycler Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Advanced Test for Detection of MRSA Nasal Colonization

Yam, Wing-Cheong; Siu, G. G.; Ho, Pak-Leung; Ng, Tak Keung; Que, Tak Lun; Yip, K. T.; Fok, Cathie P. K.; Chen, Jonathan Hon-Kwan; Cheng, Vincent Chi-Chung; Yuen, Kwok‐Yung

doi:10.1128/jcm.00488-13

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The SB-MPCR presented a sensitivity of 82.3% to detect MRSA. This value was similar to the one obtained by Yam et al [13] in the evaluation of a commercial PCR-based method for MRSA detection (83.3%). Our method failed to detect nine isolates, whose oxacillin MICs were lower than 4µg/ml (range of 0.5 to 1µg/ml), values commonly found among community isolates [14].…”

Section: The Studysupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and SCCmec types from nasal swabs by multiplex PCR

Cavalcante

Abad

Guimarães

et al. 2016

J Infect Dev Ctries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Studysupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The detection of MRSA from clinical specimens has been proposed elsewhere [6,12,13]. However, these proposed methods were not able to distinguish the different SCCmec types.…”

Section: The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and SCCmec types from nasal swabs by multiplex PCR

Cavalcante

Abad

Guimarães

et al. 2016

J Infect Dev Ctries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The specificities of both assays were relatively high (94 and 97% for the artus and Xpert assays, respectively) and compare well with other studies (78-99%) [38][39][40][41][42]. In most cases (80.5-90.5%), the two assays were in agreement as to whether MRSA, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) or no targets were present.…”

Section: Mrsasupporting

confidence: 84%

Evaluation of the novel artus C. difficile QS-RGQ, VanR QS-RGQ and MRSA/SA QS-RGQ assays for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), and for vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening

Morris

Macfarlane-Smith

Wilcox

2016

Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…If positive, the specimen is assigned positive screen status. [99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114] This methodology (called "partial verification") introduces bias in favor of PCR. 115 For MRSA, Yam et al 99 tested 1,246 nares swab specimens with the Lightcycler MRSA Advanced (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Basel Switzerland), a laboratory developed test (LDT) PCR and, in parallel, cultured all specimens.…”

Section: Shedding Timementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sensitivities of culture, Lightcycler MRSA Advanced, and the LDT were 84%, 83%, and 76%, respectively, with no apparent statistical significance. 99 No similar studies were available for VRE or CRE assays.…”

Section: Shedding Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Duration of Contact Precautions for Acute-Care Settings

Banach

Bearman

Barnden³

et al. 2018

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

purposeThis expert guidance document (EG) provides recommendations regarding discontinuation of contact precautions (CP) at the individual patient level in acute-care hospitals employing CP for 1 or more of the following organisms: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), Clostridium difficile, and multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (MDR-E), including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing organisms. This document also provides a review of the role of molecular testing in guiding decisions pertaining to duration of CP for patients with these organisms. The guidance does not address decisions regarding the initiation of CP for any specific organism.Previously published guidelines describe components of CP and identify situations in which CP should be used; currently, however, few publications address the issue of how long CP should be maintained. At the time of publication, decisions related to implementation of CP for select, endemic organisms are made by individual facilities based on factors such as institutional epidemiology, resources, organizational priorities, and previously published guidance, and these vary widely. The SHEA Guidelines Committee (GLC) selected this topic to address when CP should be discontinued for individual patients in acute-care settings that employ CP for the aforementioned organisms.Although the organisms addressed are frequently encountered in other settings (eg, nursing homes, long-term acute-care facilities, rehabilitation centers, outpatient medical care settings), additional considerations may affect the application of these recommendations outside the acute-care hospital environment. authorsThe authors consist of current and past members of the SHEA Guidelines Committee (GLC), who serve as volunteers. All authors are involved at their respective institutions in the development of policies pertaining to CP, either directly or in an advisory role. intended useSpecial-topic EG documents are developed to address areas of relatively narrow scope that lack the level of evidence required for a formal guideline but are important for the provision of safe and effective healthcare. As such, systematic grading of evidence level is not provided for individual recommendations. Each EG is based on a synthesis of limited evidence, theoretical rationale, current practices, practical considerations, the opinion of the writing group, and consideration of potential harms where applicable. Within the EG, a summary list of recommendations is provided, along with their respective rationales. We also conducted a survey of the SHEA Research Network (SRN).No EG can anticipate all situations and this EG is not meant to be a substitute for individual judgment by qualified professionals. methods Expert Guidance DevelopmentThis EG follows the process outlined in the Handbook for SHEA-Sponsored Guidelines and Expert Guidance Documents. 10 The topic of duration of CP was among those proposed and ...

show abstract

Evaluation of the LightCycler Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Advanced Test for Detection of MRSA Nasal Colonization

Cited by 22 publications

References 24 publications

Rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and SCCmec types from nasal swabs by multiplex PCR

Rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and SCCmec types from nasal swabs by multiplex PCR

Evaluation of the novel artus C. difficile QS-RGQ, VanR QS-RGQ and MRSA/SA QS-RGQ assays for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), and for vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening

Duration of Contact Precautions for Acute-Care Settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About