Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27190800›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016

ESBL and MBL in Cefepime Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: An Update from a Rural Area in Northern India.

Aarti Kotwal, Debasis Biswas, Barnali Kakati, Malvika Singh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Prevalence and Molecular Typing of Colistin-ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Multidrug-resistantTherapeutic advances in infectious disease
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Aarti KotwalAssociate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences , Jolly Grant, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India .
Debasis BiswasAdditional Professor, Department of Microbiology, AIIMS B hopal, Saket Nagar, Bhopal, India .
Barnali KakatiAssociate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences , Jolly Grant, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India .
Malvika SinghSenior Resident, Department of Microbiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences , Jolly Grant, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India .
Swami Rama Himalayan University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCefepime, a fourth generation cephalosporin, is widely used for the empirical treatment of serious infections in critically ill hospitalized patients. Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa), one of the commonest bacteria causing nosocomial infections has a propensity to develop antibiotic resistance quite promptly.

aimWe undertook this study to assess the efficacy of cefepime against current clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa and to study existence of different beta-lactamase enzymes among cefepime resistant P. aeruginosa isolates. MATERIALS AND

methodsTotal of 618 isolates of P. aeruginosa recovered consecutively from various clinical samples of a tertiary care hospital were analysed. Their Antimicrobial sensitivity profile against piperacilin (100μg), piperacillin/tazobactam (100μg/10μg), ceftazidime (30μg), cefoperazone (75μg), cefepime (30μg), ciprofloxacin (5μg), gentamycin (10μg), amikacin (30μg) and imipenem (10μg) (Himedia) was tested by Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines). We further looked for ESBL, MBL and ESBL + MBL co producers among the cefepime resistant isolates by two different methods (combined double disc synergy test, imipenem-EDTA combined disc test and vitek2).

resultsAmong 618 consecutive clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa, we observed resistance to cefepime in 457 (74%) isolates. We observed resistance to ciprofloxacin (n=506, 82%) in maximum number of isolates followed by that to Gentamycin (n=475, 77%), amikacin (n=366, 60%), and cefoperazone (n=350, 56.6%). Among all our cefepime resistant P. aeruginosa isolates only 27(6%) were ESBL producers, 18(4%) MBL producers and 2(0.4%) were ESBL+ MBL co-producers. All the ESBL and MBL isolates were also tested by VITEK 2 advanced expert system (bioMırieux Vitek Systems Inc, Hazelwood, MO, France) which revealed a 100% concordance with the phenotypic method tested.

conclusionThis paper highlights the need to reconsider prescribing empirical antibiotics for Pseudomonas infections in this region and formulate a strong antibiotic policy to curb the menace of spread of multidrug resistant strains.

Indexed as

Beta lactamasesCo-producersDrug resistanceFourth generation cephalosporin

Identifiers

PMID27190800
PMCPMC4866098
OpenAlexW2355974497

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.