Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30222736›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Drug susceptibility testing of slowly growing non-tuberculous mycobacteria using slomyco test-system.

Vitalii Litvinov, Marina Makarova, Ksenia Galkina, Elena Khachaturiants, Maria Krasnova, Lidia Guntupova, Svetlana Safonova

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. ThePeerJ · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Microbiology spectrum · 2023
    Article
  8. One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023
    Article
  9. Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Differences in Drug-Susceptibility Patterns betweenAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  13. Variability ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vitalii LitvinovDepartment of problems of laboratory diagnostics of tuberculosis and pathomorphology, Scientific and Clinical Antituberculosis Center of Moscow Government Health Department, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Marina MakarovaDepartment of problems of laboratory diagnostics of tuberculosis and pathomorphology, Scientific and Clinical Antituberculosis Center of Moscow Government Health Department, Moscow, Russian Federation.ORCID 0000-0002-2686-0952
Ksenia GalkinaDepartment of problems of laboratory diagnostics of tuberculosis and pathomorphology, Scientific and Clinical Antituberculosis Center of Moscow Government Health Department, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Elena KhachaturiantsDepartment of problems of laboratory diagnostics of tuberculosis and pathomorphology, Scientific and Clinical Antituberculosis Center of Moscow Government Health Department, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Maria KrasnovaDepartment of problems of laboratory diagnostics of tuberculosis and pathomorphology, Scientific and Clinical Antituberculosis Center of Moscow Government Health Department, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Lidia GuntupovaCity consultation diagnostic center, Scientific and Clinical Antituberculosis Center of Moscow Government Health Department, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Svetlana SafonovaDepartment of problems of laboratory diagnostics of tuberculosis and pathomorphology, Scientific and Clinical Antituberculosis Center of Moscow Government Health Department, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Government of Russia · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of the research was to assess the susceptibility of the slowly growing nontuberculous mycobacteria strains to the antimicrobial drugs used for mycobaterioses treatment using SLOMYCO test system. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe assessed 363 NTM strains: 177 MAC (161 M. avium, 16 M. intracellulare), 112 M. kansasii and 74 M. xenopi collected from the respiratory material of the patients were under the treatment or under diagnostic procedures at our Center, affiliates and the diagnostic department in 2010-2016. Drug sucseptibility for NTM was tested using the Sensititre SLOWMYCO system (TREK DIAGNOSTIC Systems Ltd., UK). MICs were established by microdilutions in Mueller-Hinton broth on polystyrene 96-well plates. The statistical analysis was done using the StatGraphics Plus 5.0 software. The data were compared pairwise using Pearson χ2 test with Yates correction. 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Statistically significant differences were considered for p <0.05. Log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess the concentration-dependent surveillance probability.

resultsThe statistically significant differences were revealed in sensitivity/resistance isolates of M. avium and M. intracellulare: M. avium strains were resistant to higher concentrations of amikacin, clarithromycin, linezolid and streptomycin (p <0.01); M. intracellulare strains were resistant to higher concentrations of ethionamide (p <0.05). The isolates of M. avium were significantly more resistant than M. kansasii to amikacin, doxycycline, isoniazid, clarithromycin, linezolid, moxifloxacin, rifabutin, rifampicin, streptomycin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin, ethambutol, ethionamide (visible growth of M. avium were inhibited by higher drug concentrations, p <0.01). The isolates of M. avium showed significantly higher resistance than M. xenopi to amikacin, doxycycline, isoniazid, clarithromycin, linezolid, moxifloxacin, rifampicin, streptomycin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin, ethambutol, and ethionamide (visible growth of M. avium were inhibited by higher drug concentrations, p <0.01). Statistically significant differences in the dynamics of the response to the antibacterial effects of isoniazid, linezolid, moxifloxacin, rifampicin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, ethambutol, and ethionamide were found for M. intracellulare and M. xenopi (complete inhibition of the visible growth of M. intracellulare required higher drugs concentrations, p <0, 05). Comparison of the Kaplan-Meyer curves revealed statistically significant differences in survialence probability of M. kansasii and M. xenopi for amikacin, doxycycline, rifampicin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin, ethambutol, and ethionamide (a higher number of isolates of M. xenopi were inhibited by low drugs concentrations, p <0.05).

conclusionsOur data show that M. avium and M. intracellulare were more resistant to the majority of the studied drugs than M. kansasii and M. xenopi.

Indexed as

Microbial Sensitivity TestsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Resistance, BacterialHumansMycobacterium Infections, NontuberculousNontuberculous MycobacteriaSpecies SpecificityAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID30222736
PMCPMC6141080
OpenAlexW2891496094

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.