ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2023
Evaluation of six commercial and in-house phenotypic tests for detection of AmpC β-lactamases: is routine detection possible?
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotic resistance in E.coli isolated from mint in local markets in Hebron, Palestine.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- MappingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A clinically relevant reinterpretation of disk approximation testing for inducible AmpC inRevista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025Article
- A Review on the Current and Future State of Urinary Tract Infection Diagnostics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Mapping Antimicrobial Resistance inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessment of Phenotypic Tools for Detection of OXA-48, KPC, and NDM inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns in an Urban County: a Spatiotemporal Exploration.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Phenotypic characterization of the prevalent AmpC β-lactamases in clinical isolates is essential for making informed empirical decisions and critical for strengthening antimicrobial stewardship programmes. This study focused on assessing six assays, two in-house and four commercial phenotypic tests for detection of AmpC, to study the feasibility of making its detection a routine diagnostic microbiology laboratory activity. Methods: A total of 116 non-duplicate Gram-negative bacteria that were resistant to third-generation cephalosporins and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, and resistant or susceptible to piperacillin/tazobactam and carbapenems, were screened by cefoxitin discs for AmpC. These isolates were subjected to two in-house (AmpC Tris-EDTA and disc approximation) methods and four commercial tests: D69C AmpC Detection Set; D72C ESBL, AmpC & Carbapenemase Detection Set; combination disc test: ESBL + AmpC Screen Disc Kit; and AmpC MIC Test Strip for confirmation of AmpC production. Ten whole-genome-sequenced AmpC-confirmed Gram-negative isolates were used as positive controls and one as a negative control. Results: The prevalence of AmpC β-lactamases was 16%. Conclusions: We recommend the in-house disc approximation test and the commercial D69C, as well as the combination disc test, as excellent tools for detection of AmpC. The cefoxitin test overcalls AmpC and cannot be considered a good stand-alone test for AmpC detection.
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.