ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015
Evaluation of Two Phenotypic Screening Tests for Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of Multidrug-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Systematic Comparison of Three Commercially Available Combination Disc Tests and the Zinc-Supplemented Carbapenem Inactivation Method (zCIM) for Carbapenemase Detection inJournal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Genomic Analysis of two NDM-1 Providencia stuartii Strains Recovered from a Single Patient.Current microbiology · 2020Article
- Comparative evaluation of in-house Carba NP test with other phenotypic tests for rapid detection of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
- Evaluation of modified carbapenem inactivation method for suspected carbapenemase amongOncotarget · 2018Article
- Clinical and laboratory considerations for the rapid detection of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae.Virulence · 2017Review
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
We evaluated the performance of two rapid tests for detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) strains. The sensitivities and the specificities were 97.6% and 94.4% for the Rapid CARB Screen and 98.8% and 93.1% for the KPC/MBL & OXA-48 Confirm tests, providing the usefulness of these tools for screening CPE in microbiology wards.
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.