ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2007
Discrepancy in antimicrobial susceptibility test results obtained for oral streptococci with the Etest and agar dilution.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Characterization of high-level daptomycin resistance in Viridans group Streptococci developed upon in vitro exposure to daptomycin.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A total of 270 viridans group streptococci (VS) isolated from healthy children, identified to the species level, were tested for their susceptibilities to penicillin, imipenem, erythromycin, and vancomycin. A total of 270 isolates and 1,080 organism-antibiotic combinations were evaluated. The overall susceptibility rates of all isolates obtained by the Etest (ET) versus agar dilution (AD) were 60.4% versus 61.8% for penicillin, 63.8% versus 63.9% for erythromycin, 90.6% versus 96% for vancomycin, and 99.1% versus 96.0% for imipenem, respectively. Major discrepancies occurred in the testing of the susceptibility of Streptococcus mutans to vancomycin, with 59.5% (ET) versus 100% (AD), followed by S. salivarius, with 84.1% versus 100%; S. oralis, with 82.1% versus 96.4%; and S. mitis, with 90% versus 100%, respectively. There were also differences in the rates of susceptibility of S. mutans, 66.5% (ET) versus 85.1% (AD), and S. intermedius, 82.9% versus 72.1%, respectively, to penicillin. General agreement between the results of ET and AD was obtained for 973 organism-antibiotic combinations out of 1,080 antibiotic combinations, i.e., 90.1%. Very major errors were found for 6.8% of isolates, and major errors were found for 3.2% of isolates; the minor errors were negligible. Agreement between the results of the two methods was 98.7% for penicillin, 94.6% for vancomycin, 96.9% for imipenem, and 99.9% for erythromycin. The highest rate of very major errors was for vancomycin, at 5.4%. The ET appears to be as efficient as AD for susceptibility testing of VS, except for vancomycin, where very major errors in the results were relatively high.
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.