ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2022
Evaluation Report of the Colistin Broth Disk Elution Method with
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid emergence of drug resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii has put forward the use of colistin as a last-resort treatment for infections with A. baumannii. Empirical colistin use without prior susceptibility testing has been one of the factors that has been promoting drug resistance in low-resource settings. In this regard, while the advocated broth microdilution (BMD) method for colistin susceptibility testing is often considered cumbersome, the preferable colistin broth disk elution (CBDE) method has not yet been approved for A. baumannii. To prevent the underreporting of colistin susceptibility, we tested the CBDE method for A. baumannii and compared the results with those of BMD. A total of 125 A. baumannii, including 100 susceptible and 25 resistant isolates were tested via the CBDE method and compared with the standard BMD method. The essential agreement, categorical agreement, sensitivity, and specificity for CBDE were 97.6% (
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.