Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28025699›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2017

Surveillance of Gram-negative bacteria: impact of variation in current European laboratory reporting practice on apparent multidrug resistance prevalence in paediatric bloodstream isolates.

J A Bielicki, D A Cromwell, A Johnson, T Planche, M Sharland, ARPEC project

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Evaluation of the Accelerate Pheno™ system for rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Gram-negative bacteria in bloodstream infections.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2018
    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

6 authors.

J A BielickiPaediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group (PIDRG), Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's, University of London, Jenner Wing, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE, UK. jbielick@sgul.ac.uk.
D A CromwellDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
A JohnsonDepartment of Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control, Public Health England, London, UK.
T PlancheInstitute for Infection and Immunity, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
M SharlandPaediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group (PIDRG), Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's, University of London, Jenner Wing, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE, UK.
ARPEC project

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluates whether estimated multidrug resistance (MDR) levels are dependent on the design of the surveillance system when using routine microbiological data. We used antimicrobial resistance data from the Antibiotic Resistance and Prescribing in European Children (ARPEC) project. The MDR status of bloodstream isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa was defined using European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)-endorsed standardised algorithms (non-susceptible to at least one agent in three or more antibiotic classes). Assessment of MDR status was based on specified combinations of antibiotic classes reportable as part of routine surveillance activities. The agreement between MDR status and resistance to specific pathogen-antibiotic class combinations (PACCs) was assessed. Based on all available antibiotic susceptibility testing, the proportion of MDR isolates was 31% for E. coli, 30% for K. pneumoniae and 28% for P. aeruginosa isolates. These proportions fell to 9, 14 and 25%, respectively, when based only on classes collected by current ECDC surveillance methods. Resistance percentages for specific PACCs were lower compared with MDR percentages, except for P. aeruginosa. Accordingly, MDR detection based on these had low sensitivity for E. coli (2-41%) and K. pneumoniae (21-85%). Estimates of MDR percentages for Gram-negative bacteria are strongly influenced by the antibiotic classes reported. When a complete set of results requested by the algorithm is not available, inclusion of classes frequently tested as part of routine clinical care greatly improves the detection of MDR. Resistance to individual PACCs should not be considered reflective of MDR percentages in Enterobacteriaceae.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialEpidemiological MonitoringBacteremiaEuropeGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID28025699
PMCPMC5395586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.