ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2014
Comparison of supplemented Brucella agar and modified Clostridium difficile agar for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Clostridium difficile.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bacteriophage Combinations Significantly Reduce Clostridium difficile Growth In Vitro and Proliferation In Vivo.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2016Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of Clostridium difficile is increasingly important because of the rise in resistant strains. The standard medium for the AST of C. difficile is supplemented Brucella agar (sBA), but we found that the growth of C. difficile on sBA was not optimal. Because active growth is critical for reliable AST, we developed a new, modified C. difficile (mCD) agar. C. difficile grew better on mCD agar than on sBA.
methodsC. difficile isolates were collected from patients with healthcare-associated diarrhea. sBA medium was prepared according to the CLSI guidelines. Homemade mCD agar containing taurocholate, L-cysteine hydrochloride, and 7% horse blood was used. For 171 C. difficile isolates, we compared the agar dilution AST results from mCD agar with those from sBA.
resultsNo significant differences were observed in the 50% minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC50) and 90% minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC90) of clindamycin (CLI), metronidazole (MTZ), moxifloxacin (MXF), piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ), and rifaximin (RIX), but the values for vancomycin (VAN) were two-fold higher on mCD agar than on sBA. The MICs of CLI, MXF, and RIX were in 100% agreement within two-fold dilutions, but for MTZ, VAN, and PTZ, 13.7%, 0.6%, and 3.1% of the isolates, respectively, were outside the acceptable range.
conclusionsThe MIC ranges, MIC50 and MIC90, were acceptable when AST was performed on mCD agar. Thus, mCD agar could be used as a substitute medium for the AST of C. difficile.
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.