Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18505206›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire2008

Comparison of agar dilution and E-test for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Campylobacter coil isolates recovered from 80 Ontario swine farms.

Norma P Varela, Robert Friendship, Cate Dewey, Alfonso Valdivieso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Commercial Essential Oils as Potential Antimicrobials to Treat Skin Diseases.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2017
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Norma P VarelaPopulation Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1.
Robert Friendship
Cate Dewey
Alfonso Valdivieso

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement of the E-test for in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Campylobacter coli using the agar dilution technique, which is the approved method. A convenience sample of 80 Ontario swine farms was chosen for this study; each farm was visited from January to June 2004. A total of 233 isolates of C. coli were tested for susceptibility to 10 antimicrobials by agar dilution and the E-test. Performance of the tests was evaluated using 7 quality control strains: Escherichia coli ATCC 25922, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213, Campylobacter jejuni ATCC 33560, and Campylobacter coli ATCC 33559 for the E-test and E. coli ATCC 25922, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, and C. jejuni ATCC 33560 for the agar dilution test. Weighted Cohen's kappa and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) tests were used for statistical analysis. The E-test and agar dilution test results had a strong agreement when resistance to streptomycin and tetracycline were evaluated (weighted kappa: 0.68 and 0.66, respectively). However, marked disagreement was detected when testing susceptibility to nalidixic acid and ampicillin (0.15 and 0.22, respectively). Almost perfect agreement was detected by PABAK when testing susceptibility to gentamicin (0.99). Agreement was found to be moderate for ciprofloxacin, azithromycin, clindamycin, erythromycin, and chloramphenicol. Although the level of agreement between the E-test and agar dilution depended on the antimicrobial being tested, the E-test always detected a lower proportion of resistant isolates compared to agar dilution.

Indexed as

AgarDrug Resistance, BacterialAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCampylobacter coliColony Count, MicrobialMicrobial Sensitivity TestsOntarioReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySwineSwine DiseasesAgarAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID18505206
PMCPMC2276902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.