ArticleBrazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]2019
Assessment of rapid direct E-test on positive blood culture for same-day antimicrobial susceptibility.
Article in Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology], 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of pathogenic microorganisms from positive blood cultures.PloS one · 2026Article
- Detection of antimicrobial resistance via state-of-the-art technologies versus conventional methods.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Direct Identification, Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, and Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase and Carbapenemase Detection in Gram-Negative Bacteria Isolated from Blood Cultures.Infection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Guidelines for Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing ofMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- The Minimum Inhibitory Concentration of Antibiotics: Methods, Interpretation, Clinical Relevance.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly and appropriated antimicrobial therapy showed to positively impact on the clinical improvement of septic patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate E-test methodology to obtain rapid results of antimicrobial susceptibility, starting directly from blood culture bottles positive to Gram-negative monomicrobial flora. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred and five blood culture samples positive to Gram-negative rods at the microscopic examination were collected. Bacterial identification from early subculture on blood agar after 4 h incubation and rapid direct E-test from blood culture broth were performed on every sample. Antibiotics MIC were achieved after 5-6 h of incubation. Resulting MIC values were compared with those obtained with reference E-test from the overnight subculture. Categorical agreement (CA) and essential agreement (EA) were evaluated.
resultsComparison between rapid direct E-test and reference E-test showed CA ranging from 95.1 to 100 % and 88.2 to 100 % for Enterobacteriaceae (EB) and for non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli, respectively. Rapid direct E-test showed an overall EA of 80.1 %, revealing different EA rates for the tested antibiotics. Among carbapenemase-producing EB, CA of 87.5 % and EA of 75.5 % for MP were achieved. DISCUSSION: The same-day communication of the antimicrobial susceptibility represents an important challenge in the multidrug-resistance era. Despite not being able to anticipate actual MIC values, the rapid direct E-test may be useful to obtain preliminary AST results in 5-6 h, especially if used in association with phenotypic or genotypic tests to identify the main resistance mechanisms.
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.