ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2012
First comprehensive evaluation of the M.I.C. evaluator device compared to Etest and CLSI broth microdilution for MIC testing of aerobic Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial species.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of Campylobacter sp. isolated from human stool samples including comparison of ellipsoid test and broth microdilution for meropenem.GMS infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Update on Antimicrobial Resistance in Clostridium difficile: Resistance Mechanisms and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Review
- Efficacy of Solithromycin (CEM-101) for Experimental Otitis Media Caused by Nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2016Article
- Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from raw milk sources in Victoria, Australia.BMC microbiology · 2016Article
- Article
- Detection of new methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains that carry a novel genetic homologue and important virulence determinants.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
- First comprehensive evaluation of the M.I.C. evaluator device compared to Etest and CLSI reference dilution methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of clinical strains of anaerobes and other fastidious bacterial species.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
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
The M.I.C. Evaluator strip (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Basingstoke, United Kingdom) uses a methodology similar to that of Etest. In this first assessment of the M.I.C. Evaluator device, 409 strains of aerobic Gram-positive bacteria (staphylococci, streptococci, and enterococci) and 325 strains of Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas species, and Acinetobacter species were tested by M.I.C. Evaluator strip, Etest, and broth microdilution as a reference standard. The Gram-positive bacteria included staphylococci (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, and coagulase-negative staphylococci), Streptococcus pneumoniae, beta-hemolytic streptococci and viridians group strains, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and other enterococci. The Gram-negative bacteria included 250 strains of 60 Enterobacteriaceae species plus 50 Pseudomonas and 25 Acinetobacter species. A total of 14 antimicrobial agents (depending on the species) were included. The same methodology and reading format were used for M.I.C. Evaluator strips and Etest. Broth microdilution methodology was performed according to CLSI document M07-A8. For the clinical strains, >95% of results were plus or minus one doubling dilution for all species. There were fewer than 5% minor errors, fewer than 3% major errors, and fewer than 1% very major errors. M.I.C. Evaluator strips and Etest often reported higher MICs than the reference broth microdilution method. The M.I.C. Evaluator strips provided results comparable to those of the predicate Etest device and are of value for the accurate testing of MICs for these important pathogens.
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.