Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31266463›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2019

Determining antimicrobial susceptibility in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium through whole genome sequencing: a comparison against multiple phenotypic susceptibility testing methods.

Nana Mensah, Yue Tang, Shaun Cawthraw, Manal AbuOun, Jackie Fenner, Nicholas R Thomson, Alison E Mather, Liljana Petrovska-Holmes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. WGS-Based Lineage and Antimicrobial Resistance Pattern ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Recent Advances in the Detection of Antibiotic and Multi-Drug ResistantInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors.

Nana MensahAnimal and Plant Health Agency, Weybridge, Addlestone, Surrey, UK.
Yue TangAnimal and Plant Health Agency, Weybridge, Addlestone, Surrey, UK.
Shaun CawthrawAnimal and Plant Health Agency, Weybridge, Addlestone, Surrey, UK.
Manal AbuOunAnimal and Plant Health Agency, Weybridge, Addlestone, Surrey, UK.
Jackie FennerAnimal and Plant Health Agency, Weybridge, Addlestone, Surrey, UK.
Nicholas R ThomsonThe Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Alison E MatherUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Liljana Petrovska-HolmesAnimal and Plant Health Agency, Weybridge, Addlestone, Surrey, UK. liljana.petrovska@apha.gov.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2638-5052

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R012504/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/000PR10348Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/000PR10351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUK public health organisations perform routine antimicrobial susceptibility tests (ASTs) to characterise the potential for antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica serovars. Genetic determinants of these resistance mechanisms are detectable by whole genome sequencing (WGS), however the viability of WGS-based genotyping as an alternative resistance screening tool remains uncertain. We compared WGS-based genotyping, disk diffusion and agar dilution to the broth microdilution reference AST for 102 Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (S. Typhimurium) isolates across 11 antimicrobial compounds.

resultsGenotyping concordance, interpreted using epidemiological cut-offs (ECOFFs), was 89.8% (1007/1122) with 0.83 sensitivity and 0.96 specificity. For seven antimicrobials interpreted using Salmonella clinical breakpoints, genotyping produced 0.84 sensitivity and 0.88 specificity. Although less accurate than disk diffusion (0.94 sensitivity, 0.93 specificity) and agar dilution (0.83 sensitivity, 0.98 specificity), genotyping performance improved to 0.89 sensitivity and 0.97 specificity when two antimicrobials with relatively high very major error rates were excluded (streptomycin and sulfamethoxazole).

conclusionsAn 89.8% concordance from WGS-based AST predictions using ECOFF interpretations suggest that WGS would serve as an effective screening tool for the tracking of antimicrobial resistance mechanisms in S. Typhimurium. For use as a standalone clinical diagnostic screen, further work is required to reduce the error rates for specific antimicrobials.

Indexed as

Whole Genome SequencingAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialGenome, BacterialGenotypeHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPhenotypeSalmonella entericaSalmonella typhimuriumSensitivity and SpecificitySerogroupAnti-Bacterial AgentsAgar dilutionAntimicrobial susceptibility testsBroth microdilutionDisk diffusionSalmonella enterica serovar typhimuriumWhole genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID31266463
PMCPMC6604184

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.