Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22386185›Full record

ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings2012

Current concepts in laboratory testing to guide antimicrobial therapy.

Stephen G Jenkins, Audrey N Schuetz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Nocardiosis: A Neglected Disease.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. New Quipazine Derivatives Active Against Drug-Resistant OncogenicInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  9. Synergistic Antibacterial Effect of Mucus Fraction fromAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Gut residentmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Optimal effective concentration combinations (OPECCs) for binary application of membrane-targeting antiseptics and TMPyP-mediated antimicrobial photodynamic therapy.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Stephen G JenkinsDepartment of Pathology, Weill Cornell Medical College, East 68th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA. stj2005@med.cornell.edu
Audrey N Schuetz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is indicated for pathogens contributing to an infectious process that warrants antimicrobial therapy if susceptibility to antimicrobials cannot be predicted reliably based on knowledge of their identity. Such tests are most frequently used when the etiologic agents are members of species capable of demonstrating resistance to commonly prescribed antibiotics. Some organisms have predictable susceptibility to antimicrobial agents (ie, Streptococcus pyogenes to penicillin), and empirical therapy for these organisms is typically used. Therefore, AST for such pathogens is seldom required or performed. In addition, AST is valuable in evaluating the activity of new and experimental compounds and investigating the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistant pathogens. Several laboratory methods are available to characterize the in vitro susceptibility of bacteria to antimicrobial agents. When the nature of the infection is unclear and the culture yields mixed growth or usual microbiota (wherein the isolates usually bear little relationship to the actual infectious process), AST is usually unnecessary and results may, in fact, be dangerously misleading. Phenotypic methods for detection of specific antimicrobial resistance mechanisms are increasingly being used to complement AST (ie, inducible clindamycin resistance among several gram-positive bacteria) and to provide clinicians with preliminary direction for antibiotic selection pending results generated from standardized AST (ie, β-lactamase tests). In addition, molecular methods are being developed and incorporated by microbiology laboratories into resistance detection algorithms for rapid, sensitive assessment of carriage states of epidemiologically and clinically important pathogens, often directly from clinical specimens (ie, presence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in fecal specimens).

Indexed as

Microbial Sensitivity TestsActinobacteriaAntifungal AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsBacteria, AnaerobicBacterial InfectionsDisk Diffusion Antimicrobial TestsDrug Resistance, BacterialDrug Resistance, FungalEnterobacteriaceaeEnterococcusHumansMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMycobacteriumNocardiaAntifungal AgentsAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID22386185
PMCPMC3496983

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.