ArticleThe open microbiology journal2017
Article in The open microbiology journal, 2017. 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of disk diffusion susceptibility test methods forJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- A Patient With Unmeasurable Urine Creatinine.Kidney international reports · 2025Article
- Screening of novel narrow-spectrum benzofuroxan derivatives for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis throughFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Aerococcus urinae, a rare cause of aortic root abscess: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2022Article
- Clinical and microbiological characterization of Aerococcus urinae bacteraemias at Helsinki metropolitan area, Finland.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2022Article
- Emerging Presence of Culturable Microorganisms in Clinical Samples of the Genitourinary System: Systematic Review and Experience in Specialized Care of a Regional Hospital.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
objectiveIn this investigation 120
methodsThree susceptibility testing methods were used; disk diffusion according to The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) standardized disk diffusion methodology and MIC determination with Etest and broth microdilution (BMD). All testing was performed with EUCAST media for fastidious organisms.
resultsData obtained in this study were part of the background data for establishing EUCAST breakpoints. MIC values obtained by Etest and BMD were well correlated with disk diffusion results.
conclusionAll isolates were found susceptible to all six antimicrobial agents: penicillin, cefotaxime, meropenem, vancomycin, linezolid, and rifampicin.
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.