ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2014
Laboratory evaluation of different agar media for isolation of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating machine learning and artificial intelligence in the management of Acinetobacter infections: a narrative review.Infection · 2026Review
- Laboratory detection of carbapenemases among Gram-negative organisms.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Review
- Carbapenem-resistantMicrobiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Detecting carbapenem-resistantInfection control and hospital epidemiology · 2020Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal method for surveillance of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp. (CRAB) is unknown. A collection of CRAB strains (n = 42), carbapenem-susceptible strains (CSAB), and non-Acinetobacter strains (n = 18) was used to evaluate six laboratory surveillance methods: MacConkey (MAC), MAC + 1 μg/ml imipenem (MAC-IPM), minimal salts agar + 1 % acetate (MSA), MSA with IPM disk (MSA-IPM), CHROMagarKPC, and CHROMagar Acinetobacter with CR102 (CHROMAcineto). CHROMAcineto was 100 % sensitive and specific. CHROMagarKPC and MAC-IPM were highly sensitive (>95 %), but their specificity was substantially hampered by the breakthrough growth of CSAB. MSA was unsuitable for CRAB detection. CHROMAcineto is a promising medium for CRAB detection and warrants further clinical evaluation.
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.