ArticleAccess microbiology2023
Article in Access microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic profiling of cefotaxime-resistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In this comparative case study, we discuss clinically relevant discrepancies of antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) interpretation for ceftriaxone against a non-typable, beta-lactamase negative, ampicillin-resistant (BLNAR) Case report: A 74-year-old man presented with a 3 day illness characterized by shortness of breath and dry cough, and was noted to be febrile and hypoxic on admission. A blood culture bottle flagged positive with Gram-negative coccobacilli, later identified as Conclusion: This discrepancy could lead to inconsistent reporting of susceptibilities between laboratories, and consequently antibiotic prescribing, especially for invasive isolates. As more laboratories adopt EUCAST methodologies for AST interpretation in Australia and globally, it is important for clinicians to consider the clinical implications of these methodological discrepancies.
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.