ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Antibiotic Susceptibility and Minimum Inhibitory Concentration for
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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global mapping of antibiotic resistance rates among clinical isolates of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2024Pooled it
- Preparation of TiScientific reports · 2024Article
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
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (S. maltophilia) is a Gram-negative, opportunistic pathogen that can lead to ocular infections, such as keratitis and endophthalmitis. The purpose of this study was to determine the antibiotic susceptibility and minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of S. maltophilia isolates from ocular infections and to evaluate the differences in antibiotic MICs between keratitis and endophthalmitis isolates. The disc diffusion method revealed that S. maltophilia isolates exhibited 91% susceptibility to levofloxacin and moxifloxacin and 61% susceptibility to trimethoprim−sulfamethoxazole (TMP−SMX). The E-test indicated that S. maltophilia isolates exhibited 40%, 100%, 72%, 91%, 91%, and 93% susceptibility to ceftazidime, tigecycline, TMP−SMX, levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, and moxifloxacin, respectively. The MIC90 values of amikacin, ceftazidime, cefuroxime, tigecycline, TMP−SMX, levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, and moxifloxacin were >256, >256, >256, 3, >32, 1, 2, and 0.75 µg/mL, respectively. The geometric mean MICs of ceftazidime, TMP−SMX, levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, and moxifloxacin were significantly lower for the keratitis isolates than for the endophthalmitis isolates (p = 0.0047, 0.003, 0.0029, 0.0003, and 0.0004, respectively). Fluoroquinolones showed higher susceptibility and lower MICs for the S. maltophilia isolates when compared with other antibiotics. Fluoroquinolones can be recommended for treating S. maltophilia ocular infections. Tigecycline and TMP−SMX could be alternative antibiotics for S. maltophilia ocular infections.
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.