ArticleInfection and drug resistance2018
Comparison of five commonly used automated susceptibility testing methods for accuracy in the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) hospitals.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network-based characterization of latent co-testing patterns in antimicrobial susceptibility testing.iScience · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Predicting Mortality in Patients with Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study in China.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Mechanisms and Evolution of Antimicrobial Resistance in Ophthalmology: Surveillance, Clinical Implications, and Future Therapies.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Pre-trained ChatGPT for report generation in automated microbial identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing systems.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial Peptides SET-M33L and SET-M33L-PEG Are Promising Agents Against Strong Biofilm-FormingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Focused Review on Commercially Available Automated Systems for Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing.Journal of tropical medicine · 2025Review
- New Option for Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing in Clinical Practice: Performance Evaluation of AutoMic-i600 Automatic System Based on Broth Microdilution Method.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Correlation between Antibiotics-Resistance, Virulence Genes and Genotypes among Klebsiella pneumoniae Clinical Strains Isolated in Guangzhou, China.Current microbiology · 2024Article
- A Review of Resistance to Polymyxins and Evolving Mobile Colistin Resistance Gene (Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Under-oil open microfluidic systems for rapid phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing.Lab on a chip · 2023Article
- Association between piperacillin/tazobactam MIC and survival among hospitalized patients with Enterobacterales infections: retrospective cohort analysis of electronic health records from 161 US hospitals.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2023Article
- Clinical and Molecular Profile of Carbapenem ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Performance of DL 96 System forInfection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Clinical and resistance characterization of carbapenem-resistantAnnals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Whole-Genome Sequencing Reveals Diversity of Carbapenem-ResistantAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2022Article
- Infectious Diseases Society of America 2022 Guidance on the Treatment of Extended-Spectrum β-lactamase Producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E), Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with Difficult-to-Treat Resistance (DTR-P. aeruginosa).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Article
- β-Lactam Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Critically Ill Patients: Weighing the Challenges and Opportunities to Assess Clinical Value.Critical care explorations · 2022Review
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: A Comprehensive Review of Currently Used Methods.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Comparison of Consumption Data and Phenotypical Antimicrobial Resistance inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Antibiogram Development in the Setting of a High Frequency of Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms at University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of five commonly used automated antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) systems in China (Vitek 2, Phoenix, Microscan, TDR, and DL). MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo "unknown" isolates, S1 (ESBL-producing
resultsMost hospitals (392, 46.1%) used Vitek 2, followed by 16% each for Phoenix, Microscan, and DL systems, and 5.9% (50) used TDR system. MICs of 22 antimicrobials were evaluated for two study isolates plus three ATCC strains. Individual susceptibility results for three ATCC strains (n=1581) were submitted by 780 (91.2%) hospitals. For each AST system, 8.7% (6/69) to 13.0% (33/253) reported MICs outside the expected range for several drugs. For the two study isolates, TDR and DL systems performed the worst in MIC determination and susceptibility categorization of cefazolin and cefepime, while the Microscan system had difficulties in susceptibility categorization for aztreonam and ertapenem. Categorical agreements were >90% for most antimicrobials tested for both the isolates, among which, using BMD, no essential agreements were noted for ampicillin, piperacillin, cefazolin, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. All AST systems except Vitek 2 showed unacceptable VMEs for cefazolin (S1 and S2) and major errors for ceftazidime, cefepime, and aztreonam (isolate S1), while Vitek 2 showed a high VME rate for cefepime (10.0%) and meropenem (6.2%) for S2.
conclusionNone of the five automated systems met the criteria for acceptable AST performance, but Vitek 2 provided a relatively accurate and conservative performance for most of the antimicrobials.
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.