Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35736011›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2022

Multicenter Evaluation of the Novel ETEST Fosfomycin for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Enterobacterales, Enterococcus faecalis, and Staphylococcus Species.

A Goer, L S Blanchard, A Van Belkum, K J Loftus, T P Armstrong, S G Gatermann, D Shortridge, B J Olson, J K Meece, T R Fritsche and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Characterizing carbapenemase-producingFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

A GoerInstitut fuer Medizinische Laboratiums Diagnostik & National Reference Centre for Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria, Department of Medical Microbiology, Ruhr-University, Bochum, Germany.
L S BlanchardbioMérieux Global Clinical Affairs, Marcy-L'Étoile, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5087-7500
A Van BelkumbioMérieux, La Balme les Grottes, France.
K J LoftusbioMérieux Global Clinical Affairs, Hazelwood, Missouri, USA.
T P ArmstrongbioMérieux Global Clinical Affairs, Hazelwood, Missouri, USA.
S G GatermannInstitut fuer Medizinische Laboratiums Diagnostik & National Reference Centre for Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria, Department of Medical Microbiology, Ruhr-University, Bochum, Germany.
D ShortridgeJMI Laboratories, North Liberty, Iowa, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1215-5216
B J OlsonMarshfield Clinicgrid.280718.4 Health System, Marshfield, Wisconsin, USA.
J K MeeceMarshfield Clinicgrid.280718.4 Health System, Marshfield, Wisconsin, USA.
T R FritscheMarshfield Clinicgrid.280718.4 Health System, Marshfield, Wisconsin, USA.
M PompiliobioMérieux, La Balme les Grottes, France.
D HalimibioMérieux, La Balme les Grottes, France.
C FranceschibioMérieux, La Balme les Grottes, France.
bioMérieux (France) · FRMarshfield Clinic · USbioMérieux (United States) · USRuhr University Bochum · DEJMI Laboratories · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

FosfomycinAgarAnti-Bacterial AgentsDisk Diffusion Antimicrobial TestsEnterococcus faecalisEscherichia coliHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsStaphylococcusAgarAnti-Bacterial AgentsFosfomycinantimicrobial susceptibility testingEnterobacteralesEnterococcus faecalisETESTfosfomycingradient methodsStaphylococcus spp.

Identifiers

PMID35736011
PMCPMC9297813
OpenAlexW4283365511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.