ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2021
Should ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacterales be tested for ESBLs? A PRO/CON debate.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2021. 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.
- Phenotypic and molecular characterization of cefotaxime-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae from chicken litter of selected farms in Uganda.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Prevalence and clinical significance of the genotypic carriage among ESBL phenotype-negativeFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial resistance inAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2022Article
- Extended-spectrum β-lactamases: an update on their characteristics, epidemiology and detection.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ESBLs are a group of plasmid-mediated, diverse, complex and rapidly evolving enzymes that pose a therapeutic challenge today in hospital- and community-acquired infections. Thirty-six years after the first report, diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for ESBLs are still the subject of controversy. Detection of these enzymes is recommended for epidemiological purposes and facilitates targeted therapy, necessary for antimicrobial stewardship. On the other hand, ESBLs are not confined to specific species, phenotypic detection methods have pitfalls, and concerns exist about the accuracy of antimicrobial susceptibility testing systems to rely on MIC values for cephalosporins and β-lactam combination agents. In this issue, we present a PRO/CON debate on ESBL testing for ceftriaxone-non-susceptible Enterobacterales.
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.