Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36290050›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Evaluation of Agar Dilution Method in Susceptibility Testing of Polymyxins for Enterobacteriaceae and Non-Fermentative Rods: Advantages Compared to Broth Microdilution and Broth Macrodilution.

Xinxin Hu, Lilan Sun, Tongying Nie, Yan Yang, Xiukun Wang, Jing Pang, Xi Lu, Xue Li, Yun Lu, Congran Li and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xinxin HuBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.
Lilan SunBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.
Tongying NieBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.
Yan YangBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.
Xiukun WangBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.
Jing PangBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0538-0327
Xi LuBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.
Xue LiBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.
Yun LuBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.
Congran LiBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.
Xinyi YangBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1052-7821
Yao MengBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.
Guoqing LiBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.
Xuefu YouBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100050, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2156-1408
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) 2021-I2M-1-026the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities 2021-PT350-001The Major Research Plan of National Natural Science Foundation of China 32141003the National Science and Technology Infrastructure of China National Pathogen Resource Center-NPRC-32
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An accurate and reliable susceptibility testing method for polymyxins is urgently needed not only for the clinical laboratory but also for new polymyxin-like lipopeptide development. Reference broth microdilution (rBMD), which was the recommended method by CLSI-EUCAST in clinics, has been proven not to be ideal, while the agar dilution (AD) method that was widely used in new antibiotics discovery has been neglected. In the present study, the AD method was compared with rBMD and broth macrodilution (BMAD) in susceptibility testing of polymyxin B and colistin against >200 Gram-negative isolates. AD showed strong agreement with BMAD for colistin (except for Klebsiella aerogenes and Pseudomonas aeruginosa); however, its performance was poor for polymyxin B or compared to rBMD. MICs of AD method were not affected when different types of Petri dishes were used, while glass-bottom microtiter plates could lower the MIC of polymyxins 2−8 times compared to tissue-culture-treated polystyrene plates when using rBMD, which demonstrated that tissue-culture-treated plates were not suitable. It was then validated with non-tissue-culture-treated plates. The culture volume was another influencing factor of accuracy for rBMD, and 200 μL seemed to be the most suitable volume for MIC detection of polymyxins. Additionally, no lack of growth phenomenon (skipped well) was observed for AD when it frequently occurred for both BMAD and rBMD. As for strains carrying mcr-1 gene, 100% of AD results were in essential agreement (EA) and categorical agreement (CA) with both rBMD and BMAD. Overall, rBMD is convenient and widely accepted for susceptibility testing of polymyxins. Although it may be too early to say that AD is superior compared to rBMD and BMAD, it did show some advantages in repeatability and anti-interference ability.

Indexed as

agar dilutionantimicrobial susceptibility testingbroth microdilutionpolymyxins

Identifiers

PMID36290050
PMCPMC9598209
OpenAlexW4304587387

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.