Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33555012›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2021

Reporting antimicrobial susceptibilities and resistance phenotypes in Staphylococcus spp.: a nationwide proficiency study.

Felipe Fernández-Cuenca, Inmaculada López-Hernández, Emilia Cercenado, Carmen Conejo, Nuria Tormo, Concha Gimeno, Alvaro Pascual

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Oreoch-1: A Peptide fromPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    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

7 authors.

Felipe Fernández-CuencaUnidad Clínica de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Microbiología Clínica y Medicina Preventiva, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain.
Inmaculada López-HernándezUnidad Clínica de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Microbiología Clínica y Medicina Preventiva, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain.
Emilia CercenadoServicio de Microbiología y Enfermedades Infecciosas, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Carmen ConejoInstituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBIs), Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena/CSIC/Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain.
Nuria TormoServicio de Microbiología, Hospital General de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Concha GimenoServicio de Microbiología, Hospital General de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Alvaro PascualUnidad Clínica de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Microbiología Clínica y Medicina Preventiva, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the proficiency of microbiology laboratories in Spain in antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of Staphylococcus spp. MATERIALS AND

methodsEight Staphylococcus spp. with different resistance mechanisms were selected: six Staphylococcus aureus (CC-01/mecA, CC-02/mecC, CC-03/BORSA, CC-04/MLSBi, CC-06/blaZ and CC-07/linezolid resistant, cfr); one Staphylococcus epidermidis (CC-05/linezolid resistant, 23S rRNA mutation); and one Staphylococcus capitis (CC-08/daptomycin non-susceptible). Fifty-one laboratories were asked to report: (i) AST system used; (ii) antimicrobial MICs; (iii) breakpoints used (CLSI or EUCAST); and (iv) clinical category. Minor, major and very major errors (mEs, MEs and VMEs, respectively) were determined.

resultsThe greatest MIC discrepancies found were: (i) by AST method: 19.4% (gradient diffusion); (ii) by antimicrobial agent: daptomycin (21.3%) and oxacillin (20.6%); and (iii) by isolate: CC-07/cfr (48.0%). The greatest error rates were: (i) by AST method: gradient diffusion (4.3% and 5.1% VMEs, using EUCAST and CLSI, respectively); (ii) by breakpoint: 3.8% EUCAST and 2.3% CLSI; (iii) by error type: mEs (0.8% EUCAST and 1.0% CLSI), MEs (1.8% EUCAST and 0.7% CLSI) and VMEs (1.2% EUCAST and 0.6% CLSI); (iii) by antimicrobial agent: VMEs (4.7% linezolid and 4.3% oxacillin using EUCAST); MEs (14.3% fosfomycin, 9.1% tobramycin and 5.7% gentamicin using EUCAST); and mEs (22.6% amikacin using EUCAST).

conclusionsClinical microbiology laboratories should improve their ability to determine the susceptibility of Staphylococcus spp. to some antimicrobial agents to avoid reporting false-susceptible or false-resistant results. The greatest discrepancies and errors were associated with gradient diffusion, EUCAST breakpoints and some antimicrobials (mEs for aminoglycosides; MEs for fosfomycin, aminoglycosides and oxacillin; and VMEs for linezolid and oxacillin).

Indexed as

OxacillinStaphylococcusAnti-Bacterial AgentsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPhenotypeSpainAnti-Bacterial AgentsOxacillin

Identifiers

PMID33555012
PMCPMC8784165

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.