Resistance of

Shervin Shokouhi, Ilad Alavi Darazam, Atousa Yazdanpanah

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Tanaffos, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Shervin ShokouhiInfectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Ilad Alavi DarazamInfectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Atousa YazdanpanahInfectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntimicrobial resistance of MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this review, articles (2000-2017), evaluating the level and type of

resultsA total of 25 relevant articles were retrieved and analyzed. Overall, 2723 cases had been recruited in these studies. The mean percentage of resistance to macrolides was estimated at 48.43% (CI, 38.8-57.9%). In the majority of reported cases, the resistance mechanisms included ribosomal methylation (i.e., ermB mutation), dual resistance, and efflux-mediated resistance.

conclusionBased on the findings, the resistance rates are considerable in different cities of Iran. Therefore, without determining the type of drug resistance in clinical samples, use of macrolides is not recommended for treatment purposes. In addition, considering the type of resistance mechanisms in Iran, use of higher drug doses is probably ineffective.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial/resistanceIranmacrolidesStreptococcus pneumoniae

Identifiers

PMID32440297

PMCPMC7230132

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.