ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2023
Less Is More: When to Repeat Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial susceptibility concordance between colonising and bloodstream ESBL and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients: a 10-year retrospective cohort study.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Article
- Response to Commentary On: Encoding Genes of Metallo-β-Lactamases (Health science reports · 2025Article
- Trends in UropathogenicOpen forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- (Un)Sustainable Science: Greening Practices in Research, Clinical Microbiology, and Veterinary Laboratories Locally and Globally.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Assessment of change in antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of bacteria causing orthopaedic infections by sequential sampling: A prospective cohort study.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the frequency of change of the antimicrobial susceptibility pattern when the same isolate was found in the same patient in various situations. We used laboratory data collected over a period of 8 years (January 2014 to December 2021) at the clinical microbiology laboratory of a tertiary hospital for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial susceptibility tests (AST) were performed using Vitek 2 automated system. We determined essential agreement and categorical agreement, and introduced the new terms essential MIC increase and change from nonresistant to resistant to present changes in antimicrobial susceptibility over time. During the study period, 18,501 successive AST were included. The risk for S. aureus to be resistant to any antibiotic upon repeated culture was <10% during a follow-up of 30 days. For Enterobacterales, this risk was approximately 10% during a follow-up of 7 days. For P. aeruginosa, this risk was higher. The longer the follow-up period, the higher the risk that the bacteria would show phenotypic resistance. We also found that some drug-bug combinations were more likely to develop phenotypical resistance (i.e., E. coli/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and E. coli/cefuroxime). A potential consequence of our finding is that if we regard a risk of resistance below 10% as acceptable, it may be feasible to omit follow-up AST within 7 days for the microorganisms investigated in this study. This approach saves money, time, and will reduce laboratory waste. Further studies are needed to determine whether these savings are in balance with the small possibility of treating patients with inadequate antibiotics.
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.