ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2021
Phenotypic and genotypic antimicrobial resistance in clinical anaerobic isolates from India.
Article 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of preoperative antibiotic use on the implant success rate: a retrospective cohort study of cefixime and ornidazole in China.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Recent Trends in Antimicrobial Resistance among Anaerobic Clinical Isolates.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Anaerobic Gram-Negative Bacteria: Role as a Reservoir of Antibiotic Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Phenotypic and Genotypic Correlation of Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Bacteroides fragilis: Lessons Learnt.Cureus · 2023Article
- Comparison of Phenotypic and Genotypic Patterns of Antimicrobial-ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) in anaerobes remains a neglected field. The laborious procedures, non-compliance with the standard methodology and differences in interpretive breakpoints add variation in resistance data.
objectivesTo assess the phenotypic and genotypic resistance among clinically important anaerobes to six antibiotics frequently used as empirical therapy for anaerobic infections.
methodsA total of 150 anaerobic isolates were recovered from clinical specimens. The antimicrobial susceptibility was determined by the breakpoint agar dilution method as per CLSI guidelines. The presence of genes encoding resistance to metronidazole (
resultsThis is a first study of its kind from the Indian subcontinent looking at the AMR and associated genes in anaerobes. Resistance to metronidazole, clindamycin, imipenem, piperacillin/tazobactam and cefoxitin was 32.6%, 42.6%, 0.6%, 38% and 35.3%, respectively. No resistance was observed to chloramphenicol. The
conclusionsThe possibility of isolates carrying AMR genes to become resistant to antibiotics by acquisition of IS elements mandates attention to periodically monitor the resistance patterns and geographic distribution of these genes and IS elements to understand the trends of AMR in anaerobes.
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.