ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluation of three protocols for direct susceptibility testing for gram negative-Enterobacteriaceae from patient samples in Uganda with SMS reporting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Use of a rapid detection test for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase from direct blood culture: an antimicrobial stewardship tool in a tertiary hospital in Spain.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Uganda, the challenge of generating and timely reporting essential antimicrobial resistance (AMR) data has led to overreliance on empirical antibiotic therapy, exacerbating the AMR crisis. To address this issue, this study aimed to adapt a one-step AMR testing protocol alongside an SMS (Short Message Service) result relay system (SRRS), with the potential to reduce the turnaround time for AMR testing and result communication from 4 days or more to 1 day in Ugandan clinical microbiology laboratories. Out of the 377 samples examined, 54 isolates were obtained. Notably, E. coli (61%) and K. pneumoniae (33%) were the most frequently identified, majority testing positive for ESBL. Evaluation of three AMR testing protocols revealed varying sensitivity and specificity, with Protocol A (ChromID ESBL-based) demonstrating high sensitivity (100%) but no calculable specificity, Protocol B (ceftazidime-based) showing high sensitivity (100%) and relatively low specificity (7.1%), and Protocol C (cefotaxime-based) exhibiting high sensitivity (97.8%) but no calculable specificity. ESBL positivity strongly correlated with resistance to specific antibiotics, including cefotaxime, ampicillin, and aztreonam (100%), cefuroxime (96%), ceftriaxone (93%), and trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole (87%). The potential of integrating an SRRS underscored the crucial role this could have in enabling efficient healthcare communication in AMR management. This study underscores the substantial potential of the tested protocols for accurately detecting ESBL production in clinical samples, potentially, providing a critical foundation for predicting and reporting AMR patterns. Although considerations related to specificity warrant careful assessment before widespread clinical adoption.
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.