ArticleAccess microbiology2020
Gradient diffusion susceptibility testing for
Article in Access microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- [Establishment and Evaluation of a Resazurin-Based Microdilution Assay for Microbial Sensitivity Test ofSichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2024Article
- Use of genome sequencing to resolve differences in gradient diffusion and agar dilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing performance ofJournal of clinical microbiology · 2023Article
- Testing ofJournal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe correlation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) between agar dilution and gradient diffusion for
aimThe objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of gradient diffusion for
methodsFifty strains of
resultsEssential and categorical agreement were over 90 % for CRO, CFX and AZT on the two commercial agar media tested. Category disagreements were seen for CFX and AZT, mostly just very major errors. For TET, EA ranged from 80 to 96 % and CA ranged from 38 to 76 %, most of the misclassifications being minor errors. Finally, EA for FOS ranged between 80 and 98 %.
conclusionGradient diffusion is an accurate and acceptable alternative for CRO, CFX and AZT. Caution is advised when MICs are reported by gradient diffusion approach breakpoints because of the possibility of very major errors. The use of gradient diffusion is limited for TET because of the high rate of minor errors.
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.