ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2018
Rapid disc diffusion antibiotic susceptibility testing for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii and Enterococcus spp.
Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antimicrobial Peptide Fusion and Alginate Encapsulation Broaden the Antibacterial Spectrum and Preserve Storage Stability of the EndolysinACS omega · 2026Article
- Diversity and antimicrobial resistance among bacterial isolates from finfish aquaculture in Thailand.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Isothermal Amplification and Hypersensitive Fluorescence Dual-Enhancement Nucleic Acid Lateral Flow Assay for Rapid Detection ofBiosensors · 2023Article
- Short incubation of disc diffusion for Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae to reduce time to susceptibility report.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We investigated the feasibility of rapid disc diffusion antibiotic susceptibility testing (rAST) with reading of inhibition zones after 6 and/or 8 h of incubation for Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. In addition, we evaluated discrimination of resistant populations from the WT populations at early timepoints and the requirement for clinical breakpoint adaptations for proper interpretation of rAST data. Methods: In total, 815 clinical strains [E. faecalis (n = 135), E. faecium (n = 227), P. aeruginosa (n = 295) and A. baumannii (n = 158)] were included in this study. Disc diffusion plates were streaked, incubated and imaged using the WASPLabTM automation system. WT populations and non-WT populations were defined using epidemiological cut-offs. Results and conclusions: rAST at 6 and 8 h was possible for A. baumannii and enterococci with readability of inhibition zones >90%. Overall categorical agreement of rAST at 6 h with AST at 18 h was 97.2%, 97.4% and 95.3% for E. faecalis, E. faecium and A. baumannii, respectively. With few exceptions, major categorization error rates were <1% for A. baumannii, and vancomycin-resistant E. faecium were clearly separated from the WT at 6 h. For P. aeruginosa the average readability of inhibition zones was 68.9% at 8 h and we found an overall categorical agreement of 94.8%. Adaptations of clinical breakpoints and/or introduction of technical buffer zones, preferably based on aggregated population data from various epidemiological settings, are required for proper interpretation of rAST.
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.