Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37870713›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2023

Multicenter interlaboratory study of routine systems for the susceptibility testing of temocillin using a challenge panel of multidrug-resistant strains.

Corentin Deckers, Florian Bélik, Olivier Denis, Isabel Montesinos, Pierre Bogaerts, Jerina Boelens, Laetitia Brassinne, Julie Descy, Stefanie Desmet, Sarah Gils and 10 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

20 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Corentin DeckersLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, CHU UCL Namur, UCLouvain, Site Godinne, Avenue Gaston Therasse, 1, 5530, Yvoir, Belgium. corentin.deckers@uclouvain.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2421-6669
Florian BélikLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, CHU UCL Namur, UCLouvain, Site Godinne, Avenue Gaston Therasse, 1, 5530, Yvoir, Belgium.
Olivier DenisLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, CHU UCL Namur, UCLouvain, Site Godinne, Avenue Gaston Therasse, 1, 5530, Yvoir, Belgium.
Isabel MontesinosLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, CHU UCL Namur, UCLouvain, Site Godinne, Avenue Gaston Therasse, 1, 5530, Yvoir, Belgium.
Pierre BogaertsLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, CHU UCL Namur, UCLouvain, Site Godinne, Avenue Gaston Therasse, 1, 5530, Yvoir, Belgium.
Jerina BoelensLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, UZ Gent, Ghent, Belgium.
Laetitia BrassinneLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Cliniques de L'Europe, Brussels, Belgium.
Julie DescyLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Clinique André Renard, Herstal, Belgium.
Stefanie DesmetLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, UZ Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.
Sarah GilsLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Medisch Centrum Huisartsen, Louvain, Belgium.
Bénédicte LissoirLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium.
Koen MagermanLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Jessa Ziekenhuis, Hasselt, Belgium.
Veerle MatheeussenLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, UZ Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Cécile MeexLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, CHU de Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Hector Rodriguez VillalobosLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Anne Marie Van den AbeeleLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, AZ Sint-Lucas, Ghent, Belgium.
Kris VernelenQuality of Laboratories, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Pieter-Jan CeyssensUnit of Human Bacterial Diseases, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Te-Din HuangLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, CHU UCL Namur, UCLouvain, Site Godinne, Avenue Gaston Therasse, 1, 5530, Yvoir, Belgium.
Belgian National Antibiogram Committee
CHU Dinant Godinne UCL Namur · BESciensano (Belgium) · BEAZ Sint-Lucas · BECentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège · BECliniques du Sud Luxembourg · BECliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BEGhent University Hospital · BEGrand Charleroi Hospital · BEJessa Hospital · BEUniversitair Ziekenhuis Leuven · BEUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate susceptibility result of temocillin (TMO) is important for treating infections caused by multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales. This multicenter study aimed to investigate the performance of routine temocillin testing assays against Enterobacterales challenging strains. Forty-seven selected clinical isolates were blindly analyzed by 12 Belgian laboratories using VITEK® 2 (n = 5) and BD Phoenix™ (n = 3) automated systems, ETEST® gradient strip (n = 3), and disk (3 brands) diffusion method (DD; n = 6) for temocillin susceptibility using standardized methodology. Results were interpreted using EUCAST 2023 criteria and compared to the broth microdilution (BMD; Sensititre™ panel) method used as gold standard. Methods' reproducibility was assessed by testing 3 reference strains in triplicate. A total of 702 organism-drug results were obtained against 33 TMO-susceptible and 14 TMO-resistant isolates. Excluding Proteae species (P. mirabilis and M. morganii), the essential agreement rates were excellent (91.5-100%) for all MIC-based methods. The highest category agreement was achieved by ETEST® (97.5%) followed by VITEK® 2 (93.2%), disk diffusion (91.6%), and BD Phoenix™ (88.5%). BD Phoenix™ and paper disk diffusion overcalled resistance (11.5% and 6.8% of major discrepancies, respectively), while ROSCO tablets diffusion and VITEK® 2 generated higher very major discrepancies (7.1% and 4.2% respectively). Inter-assay reproducibility was unsatisfactory using recommended E. coli ATCC 25922 strain but was excellent with E. coli ATCC 35218 and K. pneumoniae ATCC 700603 strains. This interlaboratory study suggests that routine testing methods provide accurate and reproducible TMO categorization results except for Proteae species.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsEscherichia coliPenicillinsHumansKlebsiella pneumoniaeMicrobial Sensitivity TestsReproducibility of ResultsAnti-Bacterial AgentsPenicillinstemocillinAntimicrobial susceptibility testingEnterobacteralesEUCAST BreakpointsTemocillin

Identifiers

PMID37870713
OpenAlexW4387866443

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.