Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37791777›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2023

Updating breakpoints in the United States: a summary from the ASM Clinical Microbiology Open 2022.

Jean B Patel, Kevin Alby, Romney Humphries, Melvin Weinstein, Joseph D Lutgring, Samia N Naccache, Patricia J Simner

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. An Emerging Infectious Yeast to Watch:Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

7 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Jean B PatelBeckman Coulter Microbiology , West Sacramento, California, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-4126-4043
Kevin AlbyDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine , Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Romney HumphriesDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center , Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6568-156X
Melvin WeinsteinDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital , New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Joseph D LutgringDivision of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5723-8317
Samia N NaccacheDepartment of Microbiology, LabCorp Seattle , Seattle, Washington, USA.
Patricia J SimnerDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine , Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6134-151X
Beckman Coulter Foundation · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USJohns Hopkins University · USLabCorp (United States) · USRobert Wood Johnson University Hospital · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) and reporting are essential for guiding appropriate therapy for patients and direction for public health prevention and control actions. A critical feature of AST reporting is the interpretation of AST results using clinical breakpoints for reporting as susceptible, susceptible-dose dependent, intermediate, or resistant. Breakpoints are subject to continuous adjustment and updating to best reflect current clinical data. These breakpoint changes can benefit patients and public health only if adopted in a timely manner. A recent survey identified that up to 70% of College of American Pathologists (CAP)-accredited U.S. laboratories and 45% of CAP-accredited laboratories outside the U.S. use various obsolete clinical breakpoints to interpret AST results to guide patient care. The reason for the ongoing use of obsolete breakpoints is multifactorial, including barriers encountered by laboratories, commercial AST device manufacturers, standards development organizations, and regulatory bodies alike. To begin to address this important patient safety issue, CAP implemented checklist requirements for CAP-accredited laboratories to ensure up-to-date clinical breakpoint use. Furthermore, the topic was discussed at the June 2022 American Society for Microbiology Clinical Microbiology Open (CMO) with various stakeholders to identify potential solutions. This minireview summarizes the breakpoint setting process in the U.S. and highlights solutions to close the gap between breakpoint revisions and implementation in clinical and public health laboratories. Solutions discussed include clarification of data requirements and minimum inhibitory concentration only reporting for regulatory clearance of AST devices, clinical data generation to close breakpoints gaps, advocacy, education, and greater dialogue between stakeholders.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsLaboratoriesHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsUnited StatesAnti-Bacterial Agentsantimicrobial susceptibility testingbreakpointsClinical Microbiology OpenSusceptibility Test Interpretive Criteria

Identifiers

PMID37791777
PMCPMC10595059
OpenAlexW4387326629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.