ArticleCurrent microbiology2020
Evaluation of Teicoplanin Resistance Detected by Automated System in Coagulase Negative Staphylococci: A Comparison with Gradient Test and Broth Microdilution Methods.
Article in Current microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increased incidence of teicoplanin-non-susceptible Staphylococcus epidermidis strains: a 6-year retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Teicoplanin-Resistant Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci: Do the Current Susceptibility Testing Methods Reliably Detect This Elusive Phenotype?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Upon the observation of an increase in teicoplanin resistance rates in coagulase negative staphylococci (CoNS) isolates determined by the automated system, we aimed to compare the automated system and gradient test methods with the gold standard broth microdilution method. In addition, the effect of standard antimicrobial susceptibility guidelines on teicoplanin susceptibility test results in CoNS was investigated. A total of 81 CoNS isolates, 52 resistant and 29 susceptible to teicoplanin determined by automated system (Phoenix, Becton Dickinson, USA), were tested. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values were determined by gradient test (M.I.C. Evaluators, OXOID, UK) and broth microdilution methods. Susceptibility categories were determined according to EUCAST and CLSI criteria and the results were compared. Among 29 isolates found to be susceptible by automated system, one isolate was found resistant by gradient and broth microdilution tests. Of the 52 resistant isolates determined by automated system, 12 (23%) were found to be resistant by gradient test and 22 (42.3%) were resistant by broth microdilution. According to CLSI criteria, no resistant isolates were detected by broth microdilution and six isolates were intermediately susceptible while, two isolates were detected to be resistant and five isolates were found to be intermediately susceptible by the gradient test. In conclusion, compared to microdilution, teicoplanin resistance was detected at a higher rate in CoNS isolates by the automated system used. On the other hand, the gradient test method which is frequently used for confirmation was not reliable in MIC values close to the EUCAST breakpoint values (4 μg/mL). In addition, lower resistance rates were observed when the CLSI breakpoints were used in gradient test and broth microdilution methods.
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.