Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32893911›Full record

ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2020

Concordance of disk diffusion, broth microdilution, and whole-genome sequencing for determination of in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Mannheimia haemolytica.

Emily R Snyder, Bridget J Savitske, Brent C Credille

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evaluation of recombinase polymerase amplification assays for targeted detection of bovine respiratory disease bacterial pathogens and antimicrobial-resistance genes in feedlot calves.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Antimicrobial resistance in genericThe Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Resistance Mechanisms inAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emily R SnyderFood Animal Health and Management Program, Department of Population Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Bridget J SavitskeFood Animal Health and Management Program, Department of Population Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Brent C CredilleFood Animal Health and Management Program, Department of Population Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5435-6542
University of Georgia · US

Funding

Georgia Commodity Commission for Beef
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtensive drug resistance (XDR) is an emerging concern with Mannheimia haemolytica, and a variety of testing methods are available for characterizing in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility.

objectivesTo compare the concordance among disk diffusion, broth microdilution, and whole genome sequencing (WGS) for susceptibility testing of M. haemolytica before and after mass treatment using tulathromycin. ANIMALS: Forty-eight M. haemolytica isolates collected from high-risk beef stocker calves before and after mass treatment (metaphylaxis) using tulathromycin (Draxxin, Zoetis, Parsippany, NJ) given at the label dosage of 2.5 mg/kg body weight SC in the neck.

methodsIn vitro antimicrobial susceptibility was determined for all 48 isolates using disk diffusion, broth microdilution, and WGS. Concordance was calculated between pairs of susceptibility testing methods as follows: number of isolates classified identically by the 2 testing methods for each timepoint, divided by the number of isolates tested at that timepoint. Discordance was calculated as follows: number of isolates classified differently by the 2 testing methods for each timepoint, divided by the number of isolates tested at that timepoint.

resultsConcordance between testing methods ranged from 42.3% to 100%, depending on antimicrobial evaluated, timing of sample collection, and testing method used. Very major errors were identified in up to 7.7% of classifications whereas minor errors were seen in up to 50% of classifications depending on antimicrobial evaluated, timing of sample collection, and testing method used. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Our results show that discrepancies in the results of different susceptibility testing methods occur and suggest a need for greater harmonization of susceptibility testing methods.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsMannheimia haemolyticaAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCattleDrug Resistance, BacterialMicrobial Sensitivity TestsWhole Genome SequencingAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agentsantimicrobial resistanceantimicrobial stewardshipbovine respiratory diseasegenomics

Identifiers

PMID32893911
PMCPMC7517867
OpenAlexW3084311953

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.