ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Multicentre Evaluation of the EUCAST Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (RAST) Extending Analysis to 16-20 Hours Reading Time.
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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (RAST): A Quick Guide to Bacterial Sepsis Management.Cureus · 2026Article
- Direct MALDI-TOF MS identification and EUCAST RAST from positive blood cultures: impact on turnaround time in bloodstream infections.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Rapid Diagnostics and Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Bloodstream Infections: A Narrative Review and Proposed Clinical Actionability Framework.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical evaluation of EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing in Gram-negative bacilli bloodstream infections: a real-world retrospective study.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of EUCAST Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Gram-Negative ESKAPEEc Pathogens in Blood Cultures, with a Focus on Carbapenemase-ProducingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Diagnostic methods and protocols for rapid determination of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: a comparative analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of EUCAST Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Gram-Negative Bacteria Directly from Positive Blood Cultures.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Detection of antimicrobial resistance via state-of-the-art technologies versus conventional methods.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Antibiotic Susceptibility of Aerobic and Facultative Anaerobic Gram-Negative Rods in Hong Kong and Implications on Usefulness of Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Satisfactory In Vitro Activity of Ceftolozane-Tazobactam against Carbapenem-ResistantMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Impact of NG-Test CTX-M MULTI Immunochromatographic Assay on Antimicrobial Management ofAntibiotics (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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the EUCAST RAST method by extending analysis to 16−20 h reading time and performance with new β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations. A total of 676 positive blood cultures (BCs) were enrolled. Results at 4 h, 6 h, 8 h and 16−20 h were interpreted according to bacterial species using EUCAST RAST breakpoints (version 5.1). For species for which no breakpoints were available, tentative breakpoints were used. Categorical agreement with the Microscan microdilution system was analysed. Among the 676 BCs enrolled, 641 were monomicrobial and were included in the analysis. Categorical agreement ranged from 98.9% at 4 h to 99.4% at 16−20 h. The rates of very major errors were 3.3%, 3.7% and 3.4% at 4 h, 6 h and 8 h, respectively, and decreased to 1% at 16−20 h (p < 0.001). The number of major errors was low for each reading time (0.2% and 0.4% at 4 h and 6 h, respectively, and 0.3% at both 8 h and 16−20 h). The proportions of results in the area of technical uncertainty were 9.9%, 5.9%, 5% and 5.2% for readings at 4 h, 6 h, 8 h and 16−20 h, respectively. Tentative breakpoints proposed for Enterobacterales other than E.coli/K.pneumoniae and coagulase-negative staphylococci showed overall performances comparable to those observed for E. coli/K. pneumoniae and S. aureus. In conclusion, EUCAST RAST has been shown to be reliable to determine microbial susceptibility to main antimicrobials, including ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam. A poorer performance was observed for certain species/antimicrobial agent combinations. The better performance observed at 16−20 h compared to the early readings may confer to the method greater potential for antimicrobial de-escalation interventions.
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.