ArticleWorld journal of microbiology & biotechnology2022
Determination of antibiotic susceptibility of bacteria by flow cytometric method.
Article in World journal of microbiology & biotechnology, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Use of flow cytometry method to detect contaminations of platelet suspensions.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2024Article
- Flow Cytometry as a Rapid and Valuable Method in Investigation of Colistin Resistance in Carbapenem-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, it was aimed to determine the antibiotic susceptibility of bacterial strains by using flow cytometry method by comparing them with current standardized methods. Eleven clinical isolates and 6 standard bacterial strains were included in the study. MIC values were determined by broth microdilution method (BMD), VITEK 2® automated system and flow cytometric method (FCM). FCM was performed with the Accuri C6 flow cytometer. For all strains except P. aeuruginosa ATCC 27853 [BMD-FCM:r = 0.557(p = 0.048); VITEK 2-FCM:r = 0.529(p = 0.063)], E. faecalis ATCC 29212 [BMD-FCM:r = 0.393(p = 0.295); BMD-VITEK 2:r = 0.393(p = 0.295)], and vancomycin-resistant E. faecium clinical isolate [BMD-FCM:r = 0.452(p = 0.063)] r values were in the range of 0.802-0.969 for BMD-FCM (p < 0.001), 0.655-0.941 for BMD-VITEK 2 (p < 0.005) and 0.667-0.953 for FCM-VITEK 2 (p < 0.005). Correlation values of antibiotic susceptibility test results between three methods for Gram-negative bacteria were found as follows; r = 0.927(p < 0.001) for BMD-FCM, r = 0.851(p < 0.001) for BMD-VITEK 2, r = 0.807(p < 0.001) for VITEK 2-FCM. Correlation values were found as follows for Gram positive bacteria; r = 0.848(p < 0.001) for BMD-FCM, r = 0.877(p < 0.001) for BMD-VITEK 2, r = 0.800(p < 0.001) for VITEK 2-FCM. When all bacteria included in the study were evaluated as a total; it was r = 0.911(p < 0.001) for BMD-FCM, r = 0.888(p < 0.001) for BMD-VITEK 2, r = 0.835(p < 0.001) for VITEK 2-FCM. The methicillin resistance of the clinical methicillin resistant S. aureus isolate could not be detected by FCM. It was determined that there was a high level of correlation between methods. FCM shortens the duration of antibiotic susceptibility tests by 12-14 h and gives results within the same day. However, it has not been standardized to be widely used in microbiology laboratories and experienced personnel are needed for its implementation.
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.