Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27025352›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of antibiotics2016

MIC score, a new tool to compare bacterial susceptibility to antibiotics application to the comparison of susceptibility to different penems of clinical strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Cédric Bretonnière, Adeline Maitte, Jocelyne Caillon, Gilles Potel, David Boutoille, Cédric Jacqueline, Christophe Guitton

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of antibiotics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Assessment of Doripenem, Meropenem, and Imipenem against Respiratory Isolates ofIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cédric BretonnièreUPRES EA 3826, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France.
Adeline MaitteUPRES EA 3826, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France.
Jocelyne CaillonUPRES EA 3826, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France.
Gilles PotelUPRES EA 3826, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France.
David BoutoilleUPRES EA 3826, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France.
Cédric JacquelineUPRES EA 3826, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France.
Christophe GuittonCHU Nantes, PHU3, Service de Réanimation Médicale Polyvalente, Nantes, France.
Nantes Université · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the susceptibility to carbapenems (imipenem, meropenem and doripenem) of clinical strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. It also studied whether susceptibility to imipenem or meropenem could predict, reliably, susceptibility to doripenem. Pseudomonal strains were collected from respiratory specimens, half of them from cystic fibrosis patients. MICs were determined according to European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing recommendations. Carbapenems were compared according to the susceptible, intermediate or resistant categories. A new approach also allowed comparing these carbapenems in a 'MIC score' taking into account the differences in breakpoints between drugs. One hundred thirty-nine strains were studied. They were found to be statistically more susceptible to meropenem than to the two other drugs. However, this difference was small: less than one dilution between the agents. This study also highlighted a significant correlation between susceptibility to penems taken in pairs. However, susceptibility to imipenem or meropenem did not reliably predict susceptibility to doripenem. Despite potential differences in resistance mechanisms, the Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains showed close susceptibility to three carbapenems. This was true for both cystic fibrosis patients and others. However, there were variations between strains. That justifies MICs to be determined for each of the three penems. This might be useful in case of elevated MICs and/or for potentially difficult-to-treat infections such as pneumonia in patients with cystic fibrosis patients.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialAnti-Bacterial AgentsCarbapenemsCystic FibrosisDoripenemHumansImipenemMeropenemMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPseudomonas aeruginosaPseudomonas InfectionsThienamycinsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCarbapenemsDoripenemImipenemMeropenemThienamycins

Identifiers

PMID27025352
OpenAlexW2316220691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.