↓ Skip to main content

A multi-site, international laboratory study to assess the performance of penicillin susceptibility testing of Staphylococcus aureus

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (JAC), April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
bluesky
2 Bluesky users

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A multi-site, international laboratory study to assess the performance of penicillin susceptibility testing of Staphylococcus aureus
Published in
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (JAC), April 2023
DOI 10.1093/jac/dkad116
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Henderson, Matthew P Cheng, Ka Lip Chew, Geoffrey W Coombs, Joshua S Davis, Jennifer M Grant, Dan Gregson, Stefano G Giulieri, Benjamin P Howden, Todd C Lee, Vi Nguyen, Jocelyn M Mora, Susan C Morpeth, James O Robinson, Steven Y C Tong, Sebastiaan J Van Hal, Reem Abdul-Hameed, Michael Addidle, Eugene Athan, Max Bloomfield, Katherine Bond, Carly Botheras, Susan Bradbury, Alex Carignan, Wilson Chan, Rose Contronei, Louise Cooley, Julie Creighton, Peter Daley, Nick Daneman, Matthew Diggle, Dragana Drinković, Juliet Elvy, Nadine Flett, Hong Foo, Jaimie Frazer, Nesrin Ghanem-Zoubi, Anna Goodman, Clair Gregory, Jock Harkness, Melissa Hoddle, Julia Howard, Ali Jissam, Kristin Kalan, Pankaja Kalukottege, Peter Kelley, Tony M Korman, Robert Kozak, Philippe Lagace-Wiens, Adriana Larrotta, Queenie Leong, Marcel Leroi, David Lorenz, Philippe Martin, Susy Mathew, Belinda McEwan, Andrew McGlinchey, Genevieve McKew, Brendan McMullan, John Merlino, Angela Mrkusich, Sean Munroe, Peter Newton, Leighanne O Parkes, Dina Pollak, Murray Robinson, Sharon Roessler, Madeline Russell, Maria Satie, Narinder Sharma, Mendelsohn Sigal, Richard Streitberg, Vincent Tan, Koen van der Werff, Evangeline S Virey, Heather Wilson, Deb Yamarura, Yang Yu, Helen Ziochos

Abstract

There 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. Nine 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. Twenty-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. The 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.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Researcher 1 9%
Student > Postgraduate 1 9%
Unknown 8 73%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 2 18%
Mathematics 1 9%
Unknown 8 73%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2025.
All research outputs
#6,031,700
of 34,575,175 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (JAC)
#2,620
of 10,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,342
of 443,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (JAC)
#31
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,575,175 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 443,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.