Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32277132›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Comparative Evaluation of CHROMagar COL-APSE, MicroScan Walkaway, ComASP Colistin, and Colistin MAC Test in Detecting Colistin-resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria.

John Osei Sekyere, Arnold Karabo Sephofane, Nontombi Marylucy Mbelle

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 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. Microbiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. The Use of CHROMIDAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Comprehensive Statistical Evaluation of EtestAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  11. Emergence ofmSystems · 2020
    Article
  12. Review
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

3 authors.

John Osei SekyereDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, 0084, Prinshof, Pretoria, South Africa. jod14139@yahoo.com.
Arnold Karabo SephofaneDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, 0084, Prinshof, Pretoria, South Africa.
Nontombi Marylucy MbelleDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, 0084, Prinshof, Pretoria, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colistin has become a critical antibiotic for fatal Gram-negative infections owing to the proliferation of multidrug-resistant carbapenemase-producing bacteria. Thus, cheaper, faster, efficient and easier-to-use colistin diagnostics are required for clinical surveillance, diagnoses and therapeutics. The sensitivity, specificity, major error (ME), very major error (VME), categorial agreement, essential agreement, turnaround time (TAT), average cost, and required skill for four colistin resistance diagnostics viz., CHROMagar COL-APSE, ComASP Colistin, MicroScan, and Colistin MAC Test (CMT) were evaluated against broth microdilution (BMD) using 84 Gram-negative bacterial isolates. A multiplex PCR (M-PCR) was used to screen all isolates to detect the presence of the mcr-1 to mcr-5 genes. A 15-point grading scale was used to grade the tests under skill, ease, processing time etc. mcr-1 was detected by both M-PCR and CMT in a single E. coli isolate, with other PCR amplicons suggestive of mcr-2, -3 and -4 genes being also observed on the gel. The sensitivity and specificity of CHROMagar COL-APSE, MicroScan, and ComASP Colistin, were 82.05% and 66.67%, 92.31% and 76.92%, and 100% and 88.89% respectively. The MicroScan was the most expensive at a cost (per sampe tested) of R221.6 ($15.0), followed by CHROMagar COL-APSE (R118.3; $8.0), M-PCR (R75.1; $5.1), CMT (R20.1; $1.4) and ComASP Colistin (R2.64; $0.2). CHROMagar was the easiest to perform, followed by ComASP Colistin, M-PCR, MicroScan, CMT and BMD whilst M-PCR and MicroScan required higher skill. The ComASP Colistin was the best performing diagnostic test, with low VME and ME, making it recommendable for routine colistin sensitivity testing in clinical laboratories; particularly, in poorer settings. It is however limited by a TAT of 18-24 hours.

Indexed as

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticAnti-Bacterial AgentsColistinGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsSensitivity and SpecificityTime FactorsAnti-Bacterial AgentsColistinReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID32277132
PMCPMC7148314

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.