ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2015
Multicenter study of antimicrobial susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria in Korea in 2012.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- A case of multidrug-resistant intractable pylephlebitis and intra-abdominal abscess due to perforated appendicitis successfully treated with open abdominal management.Surgical case reports · 2024Article
- Anaerobic Gram-Negative Bacteria: Role as a Reservoir of Antibiotic Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Understanding antimicrobial susceptibility profile of Finegoldia magna: an insight to an untrodden path.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2023Article
- Korean Guidelines for Use of Antibiotics for Intra-abdominal Infections in Adults.Infection & chemotherapy · 2022Review
- Preclinical Data on theAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2022Article
- Antibiotic Resistance and Mechanisms of Pathogenic Bacteria in Tubo-Ovarian Abscess.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
- Phenotypic and genotypic antimicrobial resistance in clinical anaerobic isolates from India.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2021Article
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns and Wild-Type MIC Distributions of Anaerobic Bacteria at a German University Hospital: A Five-Year Retrospective Study (2015-2019).Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Clinical Benefits of Piperacillin/Tazobactam versus a Combination of Ceftriaxone and Clindamycin in the Treatment of Early, Non-Ventilator, Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia in a Community-Based Hospital.International journal of general medicine · 2020Article
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns of Anaerobic Bacterial Clinical Isolates From 2014 to 2016, Including Recently Named or Renamed Species.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- The Importance of the Early and Appropriate Treatment of Anaerobic Bacteremia Patients.Infection & chemotherapy · 2016Article
- Antimicrobial Resistance Profile andJournal of global infectious diseasesArticle
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriodic monitoring of regional or institutional resistance trends of clinically important anaerobic bacteria is recommended, because the resistance of anaerobic pathogens to antimicrobial drugs and inappropriate therapy are associated with poor clinical outcomes. There has been no multicenter study of clinical anaerobic isolates in Korea. We aimed to determine the antimicrobial resistance patterns of clinically important anaerobes at multiple centers in Korea.
methodsA total of 268 non-duplicated clinical isolates of anaerobic bacteria were collected from four large medical centers in Korea in 2012. Antimicrobial susceptibility was tested by the agar dilution method according to the CLSI guidelines. The following antimicrobials were tested: piperacillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefoxitin, cefotetan, imipenem, meropenem, clindamycin, moxifloxacin, chloramphenicol, metronidazole, and tigecycline.
resultsOrganisms of the Bacteroides fragilis group were highly susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, and meropenem, as their resistance rates to these three antimicrobials were lower than 6%. For B. fragilis group isolates and anaerobic gram-positive cocci, the resistance rates to moxifloxacin were 12-25% and 11-13%, respectively. Among B. fragilis group organisms, the resistance rates to tigecycline were 16-17%. Two isolates of Finegoldia magna were non-susceptible to chloramphenicol (minimum inhibitory concentrations of 16-32 mg/L). Resistance patterns were different among the different hospitals.
conclusionsPiperacillin-tazobactam, cefoxitin, and carbapemems are highly active beta-lactam agents against most of the anaerobes. The resistance rates to moxifloxacin and tigecycline are slightly higher than those in the previous study.
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.