Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31214796›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2019

Phenotypic screening for quinolone resistance in Escherichia coli.

Linus Dellgren, Carina Claesson, Marie Högdahl, Jon Forsberg, Håkan Hanberger, Lennart E Nilsson, Anita Hällgren

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Occurrence of Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase (ESBL) Producers, Quinolone and Carbapenem ResistantInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Antibiotic-ResistantAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    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.

Linus DellgrenDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Carina ClaessonDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Marie HögdahlDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Jon ForsbergDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Håkan HanbergerDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Lennart E NilssonDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Anita HällgrenDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. anita.hallgren@liu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0854-7508
Linköping University · SE

Funding

Region Östergotland LIO-61341Region östergötland LIO-127281
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies show that rectal colonization with low-level ciprofloxacin-resistant Escherichia coli (ciprofloxacin minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) above the epidemiological cutoff point, but below the clinical breakpoint for resistance), i.e., in the range > 0.06-0.5 mg/L is an independent risk factor for febrile urinary tract infection after transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-B) of the prostate, adding to the other risk posed by established ciprofloxacin resistance in E. coli (MIC > 0.5 mg/L) as currently defined. We aimed to identify the quinolone that by disk diffusion best discriminates phenotypic wild-type isolates (ciprofloxacin MIC ≤ 0.06 mg/L) of E. coli from isolates with acquired resistance, and to determine the resistance genotype of each isolate. The susceptibility of 108 E. coli isolates was evaluated by ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, nalidixic acid, and pefloxacin disk diffusion and correlated to ciprofloxacin MIC (broth microdilution) using EUCAST methodology. Genotypic resistance was identified by PCR and DNA sequencing. The specificity was 100% for all quinolone disks. Sensitivity varied substantially, as follows: ciprofloxacin 59%, levofloxacin 46%, moxifloxacin 59%, nalidixic acid 97%, and pefloxacin 97%. We suggest that in situations where low-level quinolone resistance might be of importance, such as when screening for quinolone resistance in fecal samples pre-TRUS-B, a pefloxacin (S ≥ 24 mm) or nalidixic acid (S ≥ 19 mm) disk, or a combination of the two, should be used. In a setting where plasmid-mediated resistance is prevalent, pefloxacin might perform better than nalidixic acid.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAnti-Bacterial AgentsEscherichia coliHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPhenotypeQuinolonesSensitivity and SpecificityUrinary Tract InfectionsAnti-Bacterial AgentsQuinolonesE. coliPMQRSusceptibility testingTransrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy

Identifiers

PMID31214796
PMCPMC6695352
OpenAlexW2951030304

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.