ArticleBMC microbiology2020
Evaluation of the Etest and disk diffusion method for detection of the activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in China.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Landscape of resistance to ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam in strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a genomic approach in strains without selection pressure in a tertiary-care paediatric hospital in Mexico.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Antibacterial activity and compositional analysis ofVeterinarni medicina · 2025Article
- Ceftazidime-avibactam activity againstIranian journal of microbiology · 2025Article
- Recurrent invasive liver abscess syndrome induced byFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Addressing the Global Threat of Multidrug-Resistant Infections: The Role of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Revisited.Cureus · 2024Article
- Rapid Detection of Ceftazidime/Avibactam Susceptibility/Resistance in Enterobacterales by Rapid CAZ/AVI NP Test.Emerging infectious diseases · 2024Article
- BL02, a phage against carbapenem- and polymyxin-B resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, isolated from sewage: A preclinical study.Virus research · 2023Article
- Rapid ResaCeftazidime-AvibactamJournal of clinical microbiology · 2022Article
- The Ins and Outs of Susceptibility Testing for New β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations for Gram-Negative Organisms.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Vitek 2 and Etest versus Broth Microdilution for Ceftazidime/Avibactam and Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility Testing ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Resistance to Ceftazidime/Avibactam, Meropenem/Vaborbactam and Imipenem/Relebactam in Gram-Negative MDR Bacilli: Molecular Mechanisms and Susceptibility Testing.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Assessment of Ceftazidime-Avibactam 30/20-μg Disk, Etest versus Broth Microdilution Results When Tested againstMicrobiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Contemporary analysis of ETEST for antibiotic susceptibility and minimum inhibitory concentration agreement against Pseudomonas aeruginosa from patients with cystic fibrosis.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2021Article
- Performance Evaluation of the Gradient Diffusion Strip Method and Disk Diffusion Method for Ceftazidime-Avibactam AgainstFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Safety and Efficacy of a Phage, kpssk3, in anFrontiers in 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCeftazidime-avibactam was approved in China in 2019 for treating complicated intra-abdominal infections, hospital-acquired pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and infections caused by Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa for which treatment options are limited. However, no currently available commercial systems have been approved for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of ceftazidime-avibactam in China. Here, we evaluated the Etest and disk diffusion method for detecting the activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa in China.
resultsIn total, 194 Enterobacterales and 77 P. aeruginosa isolates, which were divided into a random selection group (140 Enterobacterales and 46 P. aeruginosa isolates) and stock group (54 Enterobacterales and 31 P. aeruginosa isolates), were assessed by the Etest, disk diffusion and broth microdilution methods. Minimum inhibitory concentrations and zone diameters were interpreted according to the CLSI supplement M100 30th edition. For all 271 tested isolates, no very major errors were found by using Etest, whereas the overall major error rate was 2.0% (4/203). The overall categorical agreement rates of Etest for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were 99.5% (193/194) and 96.1% (74/77), respectively, and the essential agreement rates were 95.9% (186/194) and 94.8% (73/77), respectively. The disk diffusion method showed that the very major error and major error rates were 1.5% (3/204) and 2.5% (5/203), respectively. Overall categorical agreement rates values of the disk diffusion method for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were 98.5% (191/194) and 93.5% (72/77) compared with broth microdilution, respectively.
conclusionsFor Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa, both the Etest and disk diffusion method showed acceptable performance as alternatives to the standard broth microdilution method for clinical treatment interpretation. Application of the disk diffusion method in Enterobacterales was slightly better than that in P. aeruginosa.
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.