ArticleBMC microbiology2023
Comparative activities of ampicillin and teicoplanin against Enterococcus faecalis isolates.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Culture-directed antibiotics in peritoneal dialysis solutions: a systematic review focused on stability and compatibility.Journal of nephrology · 2023Pooled it
- Molecular Profiling of CRISPR-Cas System, Virulence Traits, and Antimicrobial Resistance inInternational journal of microbiology · 2026Article
- Functional Genomics of Antibiotic Susceptibility in Enterococcus faecalis From Infective Endocarditis.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles of CommensalAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Antibiogram profile ofVeterinary world · 2025Article
- Outcomes ofJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Article
- Exploring Plant-Based Compounds as Alternatives for TargetingInternational journal of molecular sciences · 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnterococcus faecalis remains one of the most common pathogens causing infection in surgical patients. Our goal was to evaluate the antibiotic resistance of E. faecalis, causing infections in a surgical clinic, against two antibacterial drugs, ampicillin and teicoplanin. One commonly administered in the past for such infections, ampicillin, and another newer, teicoplanin, which demonstrated exceptionally good efficacy.
methodsData from 1882 isolates were retrieved from the microbiology department database during two 5-year periods. Standard biochemical methods were employed for the identification of the isolates. The prevalence of E. faecalis among patients with clinical evidence of infection in a surgical oncology ward was assessed. Confidence interval (CI) as well as standard error (SE) were calculated. Moreover, the annual incidence of E. faecalis infections in this surgical ward was recorded. The susceptibility of E. faecalis to ampicillin and teicoplanin was studied and compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS AND
conclusionResults showed that the incidence of E. faecalis infections in the surgical clinic was increasing. Ampicillin, in the later year period, was not statistically different from teicoplanin in treating E. faecalis infections. Consequently, ampicillin seems currently to be an effective antibiotic against such infections that could be used as empiric therapy.
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.