ArticleScientific reports2021
Evaluation of digital dispense-assisted broth microdilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing for Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is essential for detecting resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other bacterial pathogens. Here we evaluated the performance of broth microdilution (BMD) panels created using a semi-automated liquid handler, the D300e Digital Dispenser (Tecan Group Ltd., CH) that relies on inkjet printing technology. Microtitre panels (96-well) containing nine twofold dilutions of 12 antimicrobials from five classes (β-lactams, β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, polymyxins) were prepared in parallel using the D300e Digital Dispenser and standard methods described by CLSI/ISO. To assess performance, panels were challenged with three well characterized quality control organisms and 100 clinical P. aeruginosa isolates. Traditional agreement and error measures were used for evaluation. Essential (EA) and categorical (CA) agreements were 92.7% and 98.0% respectively for P. aeruginosa isolates with evaluable on-scale results. The majority of minor errors that fell outside acceptable EA parameters (≥ ± 1 dilution, 1.9%) were seen with aztreonam (5%) and ceftazidime (4%), however all antimicrobials displayed acceptable performance in this situation. Differences in MIC were often log
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.