Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32658975›Full record

SynthesisThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2020

Large-scale assessment of antimicrobial resistance marker databases for genetic phenotype prediction: a systematic review.

Norhan Mahfouz, Inês Ferreira, Stephan Beisken, Arndt von Haeseler, Andreas E Posch

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing 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

57 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing: new horizons in microbiology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

5 authors.

Norhan MahfouzAres Genetics GmbH, Karl-Farkas-Gasse 18, Vienna 1030, Austria.
Inês FerreiraAres Genetics GmbH, Karl-Farkas-Gasse 18, Vienna 1030, Austria.
Stephan BeiskenAres Genetics GmbH, Karl-Farkas-Gasse 18, Vienna 1030, Austria.
Arndt von HaeselerCenter for Integrative Bioinformatics Vienna, Max Perutz Laboratories, University of Vienna and Medical University of Vienna, Vienna 1030, Austria.
Andreas E PoschAres Genetics GmbH, Karl-Farkas-Gasse 18, Vienna 1030, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a rising health threat with 10 million annual casualties estimated by 2050. Appropriate treatment of infectious diseases with the right antibiotics reduces the spread of antibiotic resistance. Today, clinical practice relies on molecular and PCR techniques for pathogen identification and culture-based antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST). Recently, WGS has started to transform clinical microbiology, enabling prediction of resistance phenotypes from genotypes and allowing for more informed treatment decisions. WGS-based AST (WGS-AST) depends on the detection of AMR markers in sequenced isolates and therefore requires AMR reference databases. The completeness and quality of these databases are material to increase WGS-AST performance.

methodsWe present a systematic evaluation of the performance of publicly available AMR marker databases for resistance prediction on clinical isolates. We used the public databases CARD and ResFinder with a final dataset of 2587 isolates across five clinically relevant pathogens from PATRIC and NDARO, public repositories of antibiotic-resistant bacterial isolates.

resultsCARD and ResFinder WGS-AST performance had an overall balanced accuracy of 0.52 (±0.12) and 0.66 (±0.18), respectively. Major error rates were higher in CARD (42.68%) than ResFinder (25.06%). However, CARD showed almost no very major errors (1.17%) compared with ResFinder (4.42%).

conclusionsWe show that AMR databases need further expansion, improved marker annotations per antibiotic rather than per antibiotic class and validated multivariate marker panels to achieve clinical utility, e.g. in order to meet performance requirements such as provided by the FDA for clinical microbiology diagnostic testing.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, BacterialGenome, BacterialMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPhenotypeAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID32658975
PMCPMC7566382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.