Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23549664›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2013

Phenotypic detection of plasmid-acquired AmpC in Escherichia coli--evaluation of screening criteria and performance of two commercial methods for the phenotypic confirmation of AmpC production.

P Edquist, M Ringman, B O Liljequist, K T Wisell, C G Giske

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. MAST® D72C test: a novel option for ESBL, AmpC and carbapenemase detection.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Plasmids carrying DHA-1 β-lactamases.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2018
    Review
  7. Article
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

5 authors.

P EdquistSwedish Institute for Communicable Disease Control, 17182 Solna, Sweden.
M Ringman
B O Liljequist
K T Wisell
C G Giske

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The phenotypic detection of plasmid-acquired AmpC (pAmpC) in Escherichia coli is challenging, and molecular methods are required for confirmation. In addition to cefoxitin resistance, multiresistance and high-level resistance to cephalosporins have both been suggested as criteria for targeting isolates with pAmpC, but data to support these proposed criteria are lacking. A Swedish collection of 378 isolates with either putative chromosomal hyperproduction of AmpC (cAmpC) or pAmpC were subjected to disk diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination with the Etest. The frequency of resistance to gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, and trimethoprim among cAmpC and pAmpC was compared to elucidate the issue of multidrug resistance. Lastly, methods for the phenotypic confirmation of pAmpC were compared. One in-house disk diffusion method, one method employing NeoSensitabs (Rosco), and one Etest method (bioMérieux) were compared. The analysis of histograms based on both disk diffusion and the Etest showed that resistance [according to the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST)] to cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime occurred in almost all isolates. By coining resistance instead of non-susceptibility, the number of isolates required to subject to phenotypic testing/genotypic confirmation dropped by more than 40 %, without compromising the sensitivity substantially. Further, almost 70 % of isolates with pAmpC were non-multidrug resistant, clearly indicating that this is an inappropriate criterion for further investigation. The phenotypic tests all had more than 90 % sensitivity, and the best sensitivities were obtained with the in-house method and with the ceftazidime ± cloxacillin NeoSensitab. In conclusion, clinical resistance to cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime seems to be an appropriate criterion for pAmpC screening, and several phenotypic methods perform well for the phenotypic confirmation of AmpC production prior to genotypic confirmation.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial Proteinsbeta-Lactamasesbeta-Lactam ResistanceCiprofloxacinEscherichia coliGentamicinsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPlasmidsTrimethoprimAmpC beta-lactamasesAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial Proteinsbeta-LactamasesCiprofloxacinGentamicinsTrimethoprim

Identifiers

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.