ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Different Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods to Determine Vancomycin Susceptibility and MIC for
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fast-Disintegrating Oral Films Containing Nisin-Loaded Niosomes.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Antibiotic-Loaded Bioglass 45S5 for the Treatment and Prevention ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Antibiotic susceptibility testing using minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assays.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2024Article
- Reduced vancomycin susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates: a spectrum of less investigated uncertainties.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The methods and results obtained using commercialized automation systems used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing are not entirely consistent. Therefore, we evaluated different antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods to determine vancomycin susceptibility and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for Staphylococcus aureus with reduced vancomycin susceptibility (SA-RVS). A total of 128 clinical isolates of S. aureus were tested, including 99 isolates showing an MIC of ≥2 µg/mL using the VITEK2 system (VITEK2). Antimicrobial susceptibility tests were performed using the Sensititre system (Sensititre), Phoenix M50 system (Phoenix), and MicroScan WalkAway 96 Plus system (MicroScan). Vancomycin MICs were determined using the broth microdilution method (BMD) and Etest. Essential agreement and category agreement for each method were compared with BMD results as the reference method. The BMD and Etest showed complete essential agreement (100%). VITEK2, Sensititre, and Phoenix showed high essential agreement (>99%), while MicroScan showed the lowest essential agreement (92.2%). The MIC MICs determined via Etest, VITEK2, and MicroScan tended to be higher than that determined via BMD. When comparing BMD with Etest, the category agreement was 93.8% and minor errors were observed for eight isolates. VITEK2, Sensititre, and Phoenix showed category agreements of 96.1%, 96.1%, and 99.2%, respectively, while MicroScan showed the lowest category agreement of 85.2%. The determination of vancomycin susceptibility and MIC for S. aureus varied among the methods. Caution should be taken when interpreting RVS and intermediate results for S. aureus. For confirmation of SA-RVS results, it would be appropriate to test with BMD or a more reliable testing method.
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.