ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Reliability of E-Tests and the Phoenix Automated Method in Assessing Susceptibility to IV Fosfomycin-Comparative Studies Relative to the Reference Method.
Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fosfomycin-Overcoming Problematic In Vitro Susceptibility Testing and Tricky Result Interpretation: Comparison of Three Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing Methods.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Synergistic antibacterial activity of ceftazidime-avibactam in combination with colistin, gentamicin, amikacin, and fosfomycin against carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae.Scientific 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The agar dilution method (ADM) recommended for IV fosfomycin (IV FOS) is complex and labor-intensive. Keeping in mind the reality of everyday laboratory work, we have evaluated the agreement of IV FOS susceptibility results obtained using the E-test and the Phoenix system with the results obtained using the ADM. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe tests were performed on 860 strains. To evaluate susceptibility to IV FOS, BioMerieux E-tests (bioMerieux, Warsaw, Poland), BD Phoenix panels (BD Phoenix, Sparks, MD, USA), and the ADM were used. Clinical interpretation was performed in accordance with
resultsA categorical agreement of >98.9% was demonstrated between the E-test and the ADM for overall strains and for
conclusionsBoth the E-test and the Phoenix have turned out to be reliable in assessing IV FOS susceptibility only for
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.