ArticleJournal of laboratory physicians
Antibiotic resistance profile and co-production of extended spectrum beta lactamases and AmpC in
Article in Journal of laboratory physicians. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Associations betweenMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Rapid identification of carbapenemases by CarbAcineto NP test and the rate of beta-lactamases amongIranian journal of microbiology · 2022Article
- A Comprehensive Study of the Relationship between the Production ofInternational journal of microbiology · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMETHODOLOGY: The present study was conducted to include all isolates of
resultsA total of 154 strains were isolated, and all the strains were tested for ESBL and AmpC detection. Of the strains tested, 15 (9.7%), 17 (11%), 24 (15.6%), 27 (17.5%), 54 (35%), 67 (43.5%), and 72 (46.7%) strains showed ESBL production using CTX/CTX-clavulanate double-disc synergy test (DDST), CTX/CTX-clavulanate E-test, CAZ/CAZ-clavulanate DDST, CAZ/CAZ-clavulanate E-test, Piperacillin/Piperacillin-tazobactam (TZ) DDST, CTR/CTR-Sulbactum DDST, and Piperacillin/Piperacillin-TZ E-test, respectively. 20 (12.9%) and 19 (12.3%) of strains were positive for AmpC production using AmpC disc test and Boronic acid inhibition test, respectively. Genotype analysis using PCR for TEM, SHV, CTXM, PER, and VEB genes was done and 69 (51.5%) strains were positive for TEM gene. DISCUSSION: ESBL detection in
conclusionStandard guidelines for ESBL detection in nil fermeners like
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.