ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2022
Multicenter Evaluation of the Novel ETEST Fosfomycin for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Enterobacterales, Enterococcus faecalis, and Staphylococcus Species.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotic Mechanisms and Resistance: Molecular Insights and Therapeutic Strategies.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Emerging Concepts for the Treatment of Biofilm-Associated Bone and Joint Infections with IV Fosfomycin: A Literature Review.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Antimicrobial susceptibilities of clinical bacterial isolates from urinary tract infections to fosfomycin and comparator antibiotics determined by agar dilution method and automated micro broth dilution.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Fosfomycin-Overcoming Problematic In Vitro Susceptibility Testing and Tricky Result Interpretation: Comparison of Three Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing Methods.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of several routine methods for fosfomycin and mecillinam susceptibility testing of Enterobacterales urine isolates.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024Article
- Testing of tissue specimens obtained from SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab-positive donors.Cell and tissue banking · 2024Article
- Characterizing carbapenemase-producingFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Assessment of the gradient diffusion method for fosfomycin susceptibility testing inVeterinary world · 2023Article
- Reliability of E-Tests and the Phoenix Automated Method in Assessing Susceptibility to IV Fosfomycin-Comparative Studies Relative to the Reference Method.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fosfomycin is a phosphonic acid derivative active against a wide spectrum of Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens. It is used for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTI) or severe infections by oral or intravenous (i.v.) administration. In order to improve its performance and robustness, the fosfomycin strip, an antibiotic gradient diffusion strip, was redeveloped and evaluated in the multicenter study summarized in this paper. ETEST fosfomycin (ETEST FO) clinical performance was evaluated by three study sites on 152 Enterococcus faecalis, 100 Staphylococcus spp. and 330 Enterobacterales in comparison with the CLSI and EUCAST agar dilution reference method. Referring to FDA performance criteria, the ETEST FO achieved 91.0% of essential (EA) and 99.0% of categorical agreement (CA) for Escherichia coli. In addition, 98.0% EA and 93.4% CA were achieved for E. faecalis, with no very major errors (VME) or major errors (ME). According to EUCAST breakpoints for intravenous fosfomycin use, Enterobacterales and Staphylococcus spp. also met ISO acceptance criteria for EA and CA (EA 91.5%, 94.0%, respectively, and CA 98.0% for both). A VME rate of 8.8% was observed for Enterobacterales but the MICs were within EA. A trend to predict lower MICs for Citrobacter spp., E. coli and Salmonella enterica and to predict higher MICs for Klebsiella pneumoniae MICs was observed, while ETEST FO should not be used for Enterobacter cloacae, because of low EA and a high VME rate. The study results support the efficiency of the novel ETEST FO, making it an easy-to-handle tool as a substitute to the classical agar dilution 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.