ArticlePloS one2014
Comparison of M.I.C.E. and Etest with CLSI agar dilution for antimicrobial susceptibility testing against oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp.
Article in PloS one, 2014. 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.
- Teicoplanin-Resistant Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci: Do the Current Susceptibility Testing Methods Reliably Detect This Elusive Phenotype?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Teicoplanin Resistance Detected by Automated System in Coagulase Negative Staphylococci: A Comparison with Gradient Test and Broth Microdilution Methods.Current microbiology · 2020Article
- Drug susceptibility in emerging fungal infections: tests with fluconazole, itraconazole, and amphotericin B.Anais brasileiros de dermatologia · 2018Article
- Development of a heptaplex PCR assay for identification of Staphylococcus aureus and CoNS with simultaneous detection of virulence and antibiotic resistance genes.BMC microbiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe main objective of this study was to comparatively evaluate the performance of M.I.C.E. and Etest methodologies to that of agar dilution for determining the antimicrobial susceptibility profile of oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp.
methodsA total of 100 oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. isolates were collected from hospitalized patients at a teaching hospital. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing for vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolid was performed using the reference CLSI agar dilution method (2009), Etest and M.I.C.E. methodologies. The MIC values were interpreted according to CLSI susceptibility breakpoints and compared by regression analysis.
resultsIn general, the essential agreement (±1-log2) between M.I.C.E. and CLSI agar dilution was 93.0%, 84.0% and 77.0% for linezolid, teicoplanin and vancomycin, respectively. Essential agreement rates between M.I.C.E. and Etest were excellent (>90.0%) for all antibiotics tested. Both strips (M.I.C.E. and Etest) yielded two very major errors for linezolid. Unacceptable minor rates were observed for teicoplanin against CoNS and for vancomycin against S. aureus.
conclusionsAccording to our results, linezolid and teicoplanin MICs against all staphylococci and S. aureus, respectively, were more accurately predicted by M.I.C.E. strips. However, the Etest showed better performance than M.I.C.E. for predicting vancomycin MICs against all staphylococci. Thus, microbiologists must be aware of the different performance of commercially available gradient strips against staphylococci.
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.