ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Is rapid antibacterial susceptibility testing medium reliable for routine laboratory practices?
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological and Enzymatic Characterization of Proteases from Crude Venom of the Ant Odontomachus bauri.Toxins · 2015Article
- Comparison of rapid and conventional methods for investigating ofPakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEarly detection of antibiotic susceptibility profile of the isolates has critical importance in terms of immediate beginning of the appropriate treatment and increasing of treatment success, such as meningitis, bacteriemia and sepsis. In the present study, it was aimed to compare the antibiotic susceptibility results of Quicolor (Salubris Inc., Massachusetts, USA) and standard disk diffusion method.
methodsOne hundred twenty three isolates were included in this study (80 Enterobacteriaceae, 15 Staphylococci and 28 nonfermentative Gram-negative bacteria). Antibiotic susceptibility in clinical isolates was evaluated using Mueller-Hinton (MH) agar and Quicolor (ES and NF) agar plates.
resultsFor Enterobacteriaceae, frequency of total concordance, major error, and minor error between the tests were found as 96.8%, 0.8%, and 2.4%, respectively. For Staphylococci, frequency of total concordance, major error, and minor error among the tests were found as 95.7%, 3.5%, and 0.8%, respectively. For non fermentative bacteria, frequency of total concordance, major error, and minor error among the tests were found as 83.9%, 9.6%, and 6.4%, respectively.
conclusionsQuicolor media provided reliable susceptibility results in enteric bacteria and Staphylococci. However, further studies including higher number of nonfermentative bacteria are required to determine whether the chromogenic media are appropriate for this group of bacteria.
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.