ArticleInternational journal of health sciences2008
Superiority of D-zone Testing Method over Standard Method to detect Rnducible Resistance in Gram Positive Bacteria: a Prospective Surveillance from a Teaching Hospital in Saudi Arabia.
Article in International journal of health sciences, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this prospective study, we determined phenotypic resistance to erythromycin among gram positive bacteria.
methodsBACTERIAL ISOLATES WERE IDENTIFIED BY CONVENTIONAL METHODS AND BY THE MICROSCAN: D-test zone was performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards institutes (CLSI) recommendations to determine inducible resistance to clindamycin on gram positive bacteria isolated from different clinical specimens. Bacterial isolates included : group A streptococci (GAS), group B streptococci (GBS), viridans streptococci, S.pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus (S.aureus) (both methicillin susceptible (MSSA) and methicillin resistant (MRSA).
resultsA total of 1072 gram positive bacterial isolates were tested. The majority was from swabs collected from outpatient clinics. Erythromycin resistance was 8/23 (35%) for S. pneumoniae, 12/91(13%) for GAS and 17/300(5.7%) for GBS. All GAS and viridans streptococci possessed the efflux phenotype only, 8(8.8% and 1(20%), respectively. For GBS, cMLS(B) was 11(3.7%), 3 (1%) iMLS(B) and 2(0.33%) were of efflux phenotype. All S.pneumoniae strains possessed cMLS(B) phenotype. Seventy five isolates (16.3%) of MSSA were resistant to erythromycin compared to 160(83%) of MRSA. The majority of MSSA, 31/460 (6.7%) had an efflux phenotype while 26/460(5.6%) were of cMLS(B) and 19/460(4%) iMLS(B) phenotypes. Constitutive MLS(B) was the most predominant resistant phenotype, 152/193(78.8%) among MRSA.
conclusionD-test zone should be considered for routine testing to detect inducible clindamycin resistance among significant gram positive bacteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21475484PMC3068738W27013595What 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.