ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2020
Evaluation of penicillin G susceptibility testing methods for Staphylococcus lugdunensis.
Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a rapid diagnostic test for the cefazolin inoculum effect in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: Cefinase disk direct (CDD) test.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Performance of the 2023 Duke-International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases Diagnostic Criteria for Infective Endocarditis in Relation to the Modified Duke Criteria and to Clinical Management-Reanalysis of Retrospective Bacteremia Cohorts.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Staphylococcus lugdunensis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022Article
- Endocarditis due to Staphylococcus lugdunensis-a retrospective national registry-based study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStaphylococcus lugdunensis belongs to the CoNS group, but is regarded to be more virulent than most other CoNS. It is also remarkably susceptible to antibiotics, including penicillin G.
objectivesTo evaluate different methods for penicillin susceptibility testing, to assess penicillin susceptibility rates among S. lugdunensis and to describe the clinical presentation including antibiotic treatment.
methodsClinical isolates of S. lugdunensis were tested for penicillin susceptibility using disc diffusion according to CLSI (10 U disc) and EUCAST (1 U disc), assessment of zone-edge appearance, nitrocefin test and Etest for MIC determination. PCR of the blaZ gene was used as a reference method.
resultsOf the 112 isolates included in the study, 67% were susceptible to penicillin G according to blaZ PCR. The EUCAST disc diffusion test had 100% sensitivity, whereas the CLSI method had one very major error with a false-susceptible isolate. When zone-edge appearance was included in the assessment, the false-susceptible isolate was correctly classified as resistant. Foreign-body infection was the most common focus of infection, affecting 49% of the participants. Only 4% of the patients were treated with penicillin G.
conclusionsPenicillin susceptibility is common in S. lugdunensis and the disc diffusion method according to EUCAST had a higher sensitivity than that of CLSI. Assessment of zone-edge appearance could increase the sensitivity of the disc diffusion test. Penicillin susceptibility testing and treatment should be considered in S. lugdunensis infections.
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.