Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36671264›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profile of Rare Anaerobic Bacteria.

Lena Josephine Wolf, Catalina-Suzana Stingu

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Some Newer Antibiotics Active AgainstAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. IDCases · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lena Josephine WolfInstitute for Medical Microbiology and Virology, University Hospital of Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
Catalina-Suzana StinguInstitute for Medical Microbiology and Virology, University Hospital of Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
University Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anaerobes play an important role in clinically relevant infections and resistance is increasing worldwide. We tested 120 rare anaerobic isolates belonging to 16 genera for antimicrobial resistance using the agar dilution method and compared those results to the time-saving E-test method. The susceptibility data for 12 antimicrobial substances (benzylpenicillin, ampicillin/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem, meropenem, cefoxitin, metronidazole, moxifloxacin, clindamycin, doxycycline, tigecycline, eravacycline) were collected. Susceptibility testing showed low resistance to β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations and no resistance to carbapenems and tigecycline. We observed moderate to high rates of resistance to moxifloxacin and clindamycin which differed depending on the methodology used. The essential and categorical agreement was over 90% for ampicillin/sulbactam, meropenem, moxifloxacin, and tigecycline. For metronidazole and clindamycin, the essential agreement was below 90% but the categorical agreement was near or above 90%. Penicillin presented with the lowest categorical agreement of 86.7% and a very high very major error rate of 13.3%. The resistance rates reported in this study are concerning and show the importance of routine susceptibility testing. Further investigations are necessary to determine the reason for high error rates and how to improve susceptibility testing of fastidious anaerobes.

Indexed as

agar dilution methodanaerobic bacteriaantimicrobial susceptibilityE-test

Identifiers

PMID36671264
PMCPMC9854874
OpenAlexW4313361215

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.