ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013
Evaluation of the βLACTA test, a novel commercial chromogenic test for rapid detection of ceftazidime-nonsusceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovative approaches in phenotypic beta-lactamase detection for personalised infection management.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the βLacta test, a rapid test detecting resistance to third-generation cephalosporins in clinical strains of Enterobacteriaceae.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
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
A novel commercial chromogenic technique, the βLACTA test (Bio-Rad, Marnes-la-Coquette, France), was evaluated to detect nonsusceptibility to ceftazidime in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates. Easily implemented in the routine microbiology laboratory, this rapid test was sensitive (95%) and specific (87%) and presented negative and positive predictive values of 99% and 100%, respectively.
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.