Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38038445›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2023

Wild-type distributions of minimum inhibitory concentrations and epidemiological cut-off values-laboratory and clinical utility.

Gunnar Kahlmeter, John Turnidge

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing ofJournal of oral microbiology · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gunnar KahlmeterTechnical Data Coordinator of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST), Växjö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9993-9891
John TurnidgeDocument and Technical Support to the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST), Växjö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4240-5578
The University of Adelaide · AUVäxjö Kommun · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The characterization of wild-type minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and zone diameter distributions with the setting of epidemiological cut-off values (ECOFFs or ECVs) provides a reference for the otherwise relative MIC values in the international system for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Distributions of MIC values for a species and an agent follow a log-normal distribution, which in the absence of resistance mechanisms is monomodal and designated wild type (WT). The upper end of the WT distribution, the ECOFF, can be identified with statistical methods. In the presence of phenotypically detectable resistance, the distribution has at least one more mode (the non-WT), but despite this, the WT is most often identifiable using the same methods. The ECOFF provides the most sensitive measure of resistance development in a species against an agent. The WT and non-WT modes are independent of the organism´s response to treatment, but when the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) determines the clinical breakpoints, the committee avoids breakpoints that split WT distributions of target species. This is to avoid the poorer reproducibility of susceptibility categorization when breakpoints split major populations but also because the EUCAST has failed to identify different clinical outcomes for isolates with different MIC values inside the wild-type distribution. In laboratory practice, the ECOFF is used to screen for and exclude resistance and allows the comparison of resistance between systems with different breakpoints from different breakpoint organizations, breakpoints evolving over time, and different breakpoints between human and animal medicine. The EUCAST actively encourages colleagues to question MIC distributions as presented on the website (https://www.eucast.org/mic_and_zone_distributions_and_ecoffs) and to contribute MIC and inhibition zone diameter data.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsReproducibility of ResultsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agentsantimicrobial susceptibility testingASTECOFFECVepidemiological cut-off valuephenotypic wild-type distribution

Identifiers

PMID38038445
PMCPMC10732016
OpenAlexW4389223216

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.