Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23722448›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2013

Predicting antimicrobial susceptibilities for Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates using whole genomic sequence data.

N Stoesser, E M Batty, D W Eyre, M Morgan, D H Wyllie, C Del Ojo Elias, J R Johnson, A S Walker, T E A Peto, D W Crook

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 170 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
170citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

170 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Whole-Genome Sequence Analysis of Colistin-Resistant,Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational

110 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

10 authors.

N StoesserNuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital (Level 5), Headley Way, Headington OX3 9DU, UK.
E M Batty
D W Eyre
M Morgan
D H Wyllie
C Del Ojo Elias
J R Johnson
A S Walker
T E A Peto
D W Crook

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCSRD VA I01 CX000192Department of Health DRF-2010-03-40Department of Health G0800778Medical Research Council G0800778Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 087646/Z/08/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWhole-genome sequencing potentially represents a single, rapid and cost-effective approach to defining resistance mechanisms and predicting phenotype, and strain type, for both clinical and epidemiological purposes. This retrospective study aimed to determine the efficacy of whole genome-based antimicrobial resistance prediction in clinical isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae.

methodsSeventy-four E. coli and 69 K. pneumoniae bacteraemia isolates from Oxfordshire, UK, were sequenced (Illumina HiSeq 2000). Resistance phenotypes were predicted from genomic sequences using BLASTn-based comparisons of de novo-assembled contigs with a study database of >100 known resistance-associated loci, including plasmid-associated and chromosomal genes. Predictions were made for seven commonly used antimicrobials: amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin and meropenem. Comparisons were made with phenotypic results obtained in duplicate by broth dilution (BD Phoenix). Discrepancies, either between duplicate BD Phoenix results or between genotype and phenotype, were resolved with gradient diffusion analyses.

resultsA wide variety of antimicrobial resistance genes were identified, including blaCTX-M, blaLEN, blaOKP, blaOXA, blaSHV, blaTEM, aac(3')-Ia, aac-(3')-IId, aac-(3')-IIe, aac(6')-Ib-cr, aadA1a, aadA4, aadA5, aadA16, aph(6')-Id, aph(3')-Ia, qnrB and qnrS, as well as resistance-associated mutations in chromosomal gyrA and parC genes. The sensitivity of genome-based resistance prediction across all antibiotics for both species was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98) and the specificity was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98). Very major and major error rates were 1.2% and 2.1%, respectively.

conclusionsOur method was as sensitive and specific as routinely deployed phenotypic methods. Validation against larger datasets and formal assessments of cost and turnaround time in a routine laboratory setting are warranted.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialGenome, BacterialAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteremiaDNA, BacterialEscherichia coliHumansKlebsiella pneumoniaeMicrobial Sensitivity TestsSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Analysis, DNAUnited KingdomAnti-Bacterial AgentsDNA, BacterialantibioticGram-negativephenotype

Identifiers

PMID23722448
PMCPMC3772739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.