Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23152277›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Standard versus biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide antibiotic therapy in cystic fibrosis.

Valerie Waters, Felix Ratjen

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Kinetic of Adhesion ofBioMed research international · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Molecular detection of CF lung pathogens: current status and future potential.Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society · 2013
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Valerie WatersDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. valerie.waters@sickkids.ca
Felix Ratjen
Great Ormond Street Hospital · GBHospital for Sick Children · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe antibiotics used to treat pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis are typically chosen based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing performed on bacteria traditionally grown in a planktonic mode (grown in a liquid). However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Pseudomonas aeruginosa actually grows in a biofilm (or slime layer) in the airways of cystic fibrosis patients with chronic pulmonary infections. Therefore, choosing antibiotics based on biofilm rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing could potentially improve response to treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis.

objectivesTo compare biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing-driven therapy to conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing-driven therapy in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in people with cystic fibrosis. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched a registry of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Most recent search: 02 August 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of antibiotic therapy based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infection in individuals with cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors independently selected trials, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data from eligible trials. Additionally, the authors contacted the trial investigators to obtain further information. MAIN

resultsThe search identified one multicentre, randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial eligible for inclusion in the review (39 participants). This trial prospectively assessed whether the use of biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing improved microbiological and clinical outcomes in participants with cystic fibrosis who were infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The primary outcome was the change in sputum Pseudomonas aeruginosa density from the beginning to the end of antibiotic therapy. The mean (standard deviation) change in density in log(10) colony forming units per gram was -2.94 (2.83) in the biofilm group and -3.27 (3.09) in the control group, for a mean difference of 0.28 (95% confidence interval -1.98 to 2.54) (P = 0.8). The data did not provide evidence that biofilm susceptibility testing was superior to conventional susceptibility testing. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe current evidence is insufficient to recommend choosing antibiotics based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis. Future randomized clinical trials on this topic may shed further light on this question.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBiofilmsCystic FibrosisFemaleHumansMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPseudomonas aeruginosaPseudomonas InfectionsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory Tract InfectionsSputumAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID23152277
OpenAlexW4236832845

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.