ArticleAnnals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials2018
Continued in vitro cefazolin susceptibility in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus.
Article in Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cefazolin Versus Antistaphylococcal Penicillins in Methicillin-SusceptibleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Treatment effect based on antimicrobial resistance in Staphylococcus aureus infections related to orthopedics.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Staphylococcus aureus Breast Implant Infection Isolates Display Recalcitrance To Antibiotic Pocket Irrigants.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis in an Era of Antibiotic Resistance: Common Resistant Bacteria and Wider Considerations for Practice.Infection and drug resistance · 2021Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn vitro trends of cefazolin and ceftriaxone susceptibilities from pediatric clinical isolates of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) between 2011 and 2016 were analyzed for surveillance.
methodsOur laboratory continues to use agar disk diffusion for staphylococcal susceptibilities applying Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute's 2012 breakpoints.
resultsA total of 3992 MSSA clinical isolates in the last 6 years were analyzed for their in vitro cefazolin and ceftriaxone susceptibilities. While all MSSA isolates exhibited cefazolin susceptibilities within the "susceptible" zone range, there have been a proportion of isolates with ceftriaxone susceptibilities falling in "intermediate" zones, ranging from 2.6% in 2011 to 8.3% in 2016.
conclusionsCefazolin continues to be the recommended agent for MSSA treatment at our institution, reflected by the finding that only 2% (6/321) of patients who received ceftriaxone as definitive therapy for MSSA bacteremia during the study period. We have confirmed the cefoxitin-predicted MSSA susceptibility to cefazolin, but have found concerning drifts in ceftriaxone susceptibilities by continued in vitro monitoring over the last 6 years.
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.