ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2012
Comparative evaluation of tigecycline susceptibility testing methods for expanded-spectrum cephalosporin- and carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens.
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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of tigecycline susceptibility testing methods for carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2026Article
- Article
- Prevalence of difficult-to-treat resistance in ESKAPE pathogens in a third level hospital in Mexico.Infection prevention in practice · 2025Article
- Article
- Rapid, automated, and reliable antimicrobial susceptibility test from positive blood culture by CAST-R.mLife · 2022Article
- Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Seven Tigecycline Susceptibility Testing Methods for Carbapenem-ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2021Article
- Evaluation of three different methods for susceptibility testing of gentamicin in carbapenem resistant Enterobacterales.Le infezioni in medicina · 2021Article
- Emergence and Comparative Genomics Analysis of Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia coli CarryingmSphere · 2019Article
- COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS FOR TIGECYCLINE SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING INActa clinica Croatica · 2018Article
- Insights into Newer Antimicrobial Agents Against Gram-negative Bacteria.Microbiology insights · 2016Review
- Is there a future for tigecycline?Intensive care medicine · 2014Article
- Multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens: current and emerging therapeutic approaches.Expert opinion on pharmacotherapy · 2014Review
- Accumulation of carbapenem resistance mechanisms in VIM-2-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa under selective pressure.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2014Article
- Clinical and microbiological characteristics of tigecycline non-susceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia in Taiwan.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the Vitek2, Etest, and MIC Test Strip (MTS) methods of tigecycline susceptibility testing with 241 expanded-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant and/or carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates by using dry-form broth microdilution (BMD) as the reference method. The MIC(50/90)s were as follows: BMD, 1/4 μg/ml; Vitek2, 4/≥8 μg/ml; Etest, 2/4 μg/ml; MTS, 0.5/2 μg/ml. Vitek2 produced 9.1/21.2% major errors, Etest produced 0.4/0.8% major errors, and MTS produced no major errors but 0.4/3.3% very major errors (FDA/EUCAST breakpoints). Vitek2 tigecycline results require confirmation by BMD or Etest for multidrug-resistant 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.