ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2014
Validation of antibiotic susceptibility testing guidelines in a routine clinical microbiology laboratory exemplifies general key challenges in setting clinical breakpoints.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A nutrient-limited screen unmasks rifabutin hyperactivity for extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii.Nature microbiology · 2020Article
- Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance and Drug Usage in the Human and Livestock Sector and Foodborne Antimicrobial Resistance in Six European Countries.Infection and drug resistance · 2020Article
- Establishing Genotypic Cutoff Values To Measure Antimicrobial Resistance in Salmonella.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2017Article
- Article
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility among Urban Wastewater and Wild Shellfish Isolates of Non-O1/Non-O139Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Autochthonous AquaticFrontiers in microbiology · 2016Article
- A statistical approach for determination of disk diffusion-based cutoff values for systematic characterization of wild-type and non-wild-type bacterial populations in antimicrobial susceptibility testing.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study critically evaluated the new European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) antibiotic susceptibility testing guidelines on the basis of a large set of disk diffusion diameters determined for clinical isolates. We report several paradigmatic problems that illustrate key issues in the selection of clinical susceptibility breakpoints, which are of general importance not only for EUCAST but for all guidelines systems, i.e., (i) the need for species-specific determinations of clinical breakpoints/epidemiological cutoffs (ECOFFs), (ii) problems arising from pooling data from various sources, and (iii) the importance of the antibiotic disk content for separating non-wild-type and wild-type populations.
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.