ArticleJournal of microbiological methods2024
Comparison of available methods to evaluate cefiderocol susceptibility in Acinetobacter spp.
Article in Journal of microbiological methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clonal lineage and biofilm growth shape cefiderocol activity inFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- The Achilles' heel of the Trojan Horse? A systematic evaluation of cefiderocol susceptibility testing.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2025Article
- Real-world performance of susceptibility testing for cefiderocol: insights from a prospective multicentre study on Gram-negative bacteria.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Article
- Commercially available tests for determining cefiderocol susceptibility display variable performance in the Achromobacter genus.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recently, considerable uncertainty has arisen concerning the appropriate susceptibility testing for cefiderocol in gram-negative bacilli, particularly in the context of its application to Acinetobacter spp. The optimal method for assessing the susceptibility levels of Acinetobacter spp. to cefiderocol remains a subject of debate due to substantial disparities observed in the values obtained through various testing procedures. This study employed four minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) methodologies and the disk diffusion to assess the susceptibility of twenty-seven carbapenem resistant (CR)-Acinetobacter strains to cefiderocol. The results from our study reveal significant variations in the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values obtained with the different methods and in the level of agreement in interpretation categories between the different MIC methods and the disk diffusion test. Among the MIC methods, there was relatively more consistency in reporting the interpretation categories. For European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints, the categorical agreement (CA) for MIC methods ranged between 66.7 and 81.5%. On the other hand, the essential agreement (EA) values were as low as 18.5-29.6%. The CA between MIC methods and disk diffusion was 81.5%. These results emphasize the need for a reliable, accurate, and clinically validated methodology to effectively assess the susceptibility of Acinetobacter spp. to cefiderocol. The wide variability observed in our study highlights the importance of standardizing the susceptibility testing process for cefiderocol to ensure consistent and reliable results for clinical decision-making.
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.