Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 835

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 120 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Update on clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococci

Open access
Kloos, W E, Bannerman, T L·1994·Clinical Microbiology Reviews
DOI 10.1128/cmr.7.1.117
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The clinical significance of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species (CNS) continues to increase as strategies in medical practice lead to more invasive procedures. Hospitalized patients that are immunocompromised and/or suffering from chronic diseases are the most vulnerable to infection. Since CNS are widespread on the human body and are capable of producing very large populations, distinguishing the etiologic agent(s) from contaminating flora is a serious challenge. For this reason, culture identification should proceed to the species and strain levels. A much stronger case can be made for the identification of a CNS etiologic agent if the same strain is repeatedly isolated from a series of specimens as opposed to the isolation of different strains of one or more species. Strain identity initially can be based on colony morphology, and then one or more molecular approaches can be used to gain information on the genotype. Many of the CNS species are commonly resistant to antibiotics that are being indicated for staphylococcal infections, with the exception of vancomycin. The widespread use of antibiotics in hospitals has provided a reservoir of antibiotic-resistant genes. The main focus on mechanisms of pathogenesis has been with foreign body infections and the role of specific adhesins and slime produced by Staphylococcus epidermidis. Slime can reduce the immune response and opsonophagocytosis, thereby interfering with host defense mechanisms. As we become more aware of the various strategies used by CNS, we will be in a better position to compromise their defense mechanisms and improve treatment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/cmr.7.1.117

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 120 references

Cited by

See all 835

Metadata

Authors
Kloos, W. E., & Bannerman, T. L.
Venue
Clinical Microbiology Reviews
Publisher
American Society for Microbiology
Published
1994-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
117-140
ISSN
  • 0893-8512 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6618
DOI
10.1128/cmr.7.1.117
OpenAlex
W1838399447
Cited by
835
References
120
FWCI
23.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Update on clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococci. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/cmr.7.1.117
The paper
Kloos, W. E., & Bannerman, T. L. (1994). Update on clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.7.1.117

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.