Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31511331›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2019

Multicenter Evaluation of Colistin Broth Disk Elution and Colistin Agar Test: a Report from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.

Romney M Humphries, Daniel A Green, Audrey N Schuetz, Yehudit Bergman, Shawna Lewis, Rebecca Yee, Stephania Stump, Mabel Lopez, Nenad Macesic, Anne-Catrin Uhlemann and 3 more

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. [Plasmid-mediated colistin resistance in pathogenic bacteria].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Evaluation of different methods forAccess microbiology · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  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

13 authors.

Romney M HumphriesAccelerate Diagnostics, Tucson Arizona, USA rhumphries@axdx.com.
Daniel A GreenClinical Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology & Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Audrey N SchuetzDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Yehudit BergmanDivision of Medical Microbiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Shawna LewisDivision of Medical Microbiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Rebecca YeeDivision of Medical Microbiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Stephania StumpDivision of Infectious Diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Mabel LopezClinical Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology & Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Nenad MacesicDivision of Infectious Diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Anne-Catrin UhlemannDivision of Infectious Diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9798-4768
Peggy KohnerDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Nicolynn ColeDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Patricia J SimnerDivision of Medical Microbiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Susceptibility testing of the polymyxins (colistin and polymyxin B) is challenging for clinical laboratories. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee evaluated two methods to enable accurate testing of these agents. These methods were a colistin broth disk elution (CBDE) and a colistin agar test (CAT), the latter of which was evaluated using two inoculum volumes, 1 μl (CAT-1) and 10 μl (CAT-10). The methods were evaluated using a collection of 270 isolates of

Indexed as

AcinetobacterAgarAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaClinical Laboratory ServicesColistinDisk Diffusion Antimicrobial TestsEnterobacteriaceaeMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPseudomonas aeruginosaReproducibility of ResultsAgarAnti-Bacterial AgentsColistinAcinetobacteragar dilutionbroth microdilutioncolistincolistin broth disk elutionEnterobacteralesPseudomonas aeruginosasusceptibility testing

Identifiers

PMID31511331
PMCPMC6813006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.