ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022
Detection and Characterization of Carbapenemases in
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Detection of Carbapenemase-Producing Acinetobacter Baumannii Using MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry: A Technological Advancement in Clinical Microbiology.Iranian journal of biotechnology · 2026Article
- Blood-rsCDM: a new rapid and simplified carbapenemase detection method for detecting carbapenemases in Enterobacterales directly from positive blood cultures.BMC microbiology · 2024Article
- The application of targeted nanopore sequencing for the identification of pathogens and resistance genes in lower respiratory tract infections.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to develop a new rapid and simplified carbapenemase detection method (rsCDM) for detection and characterization of carbapenemase with 3-aminophenylboronic acid (APBA), ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and cloxacillin (CLO) β-lactamase inhibitors. Methods: A panel of 182 carbapenem-resistant Results: The sensitivity of rsCDM using IMI was 97.1% at the three time points, with a specificity of 100%, independent of the culture duration. Similar to IPM, MEM disk also showed high sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (100%) at 6 h. And the sensitivity of eCIM was 95.4% and the specificity was 100%. Based on a decision algorithm, the characterization number of IMI and MEM in KPC-producing isolates was 88 vs. 87, metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) was 73 vs. 72, KPC and NDM carbapenemase was 7 vs. 7 at 4 h, respectively. After 6 h, the category number changed insignificantly except for isolates with combined AmpC overproduction and porin changes, showing an increase in IMI (6) and MEM (2), and there was no difference in the results between 6 and 18 h for the two tablets. OXA-181-producing strains can't be distinguished by rsCDM. For eCIM, the characterization number in KPC-, OXA- 181-, and MBLs-producing strains was 88, 5, and 72, but it failed to detect multi-enzyme-producing isolates (KPC and NDM). Conclusion: rsCDM accurately discriminated carbapenemase within 4 h and could differentiate multi-enzyme (KPC and NDM) and AmpC in conjunction with porin changes strains. Hence, rsCDM represents a rapid, simple, easy readout, and accurate tool that can be used without any specialized equipment.
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.