ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2024
Performance of Flow Cytometry-Based Rapid Assay in Detection of Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacterales.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolving Approaches to Bacterial Identification: A Review of Classical and Modern Techniques.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Novel Insights into Carbapenem Resistance: Mechanisms, Diagnostics, and Future Directions.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales are increasingly being recognized in nosocomial infections. The performance of a flow cytometry-based rapid assay for their detection and differentiation was evaluated. This is a disruptive phenotypic technology, phenotypic and growth-independent, that searches for the lesions produced by drugs acting on cells after a short incubation time. Overall, 180 Gram-negative bacteria were studied, and results were compared with those obtained molecularly by PCR and phenotypically by 'KPC, MBL and OXA-48 Confirm Kit'. This phenotypic method was used as reference for comparison purposes. Susceptibility to carbapenems (imipenem, meropenem, and ertapenem) was determined by standard broth microdilution. Overall, 112 isolates (62.2%) were carbapenemase producers, 41 KPCs, 36 MβLs, and 31 OXA-48, and 4 strains were KPC + MβL co-producers. Sixty-eight isolates were carbapenemase-negative. The percentage of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated according to ISO 20776-2:2021. The FASTinov assay showed 97.7% agreement with the reference method for carbapenemase detection. Discrepant flow cytometry results were obtained in four isolates compared with both reference and PCR results. The sensitivity and specificity of this new technology were 95.3% and 98.5%, respectively, for KPCs, 97.6% and 99.3% for MβLs, and 96.9% and 98% for OXA-48 detection. In conclusion, we describe a rapid flow cytometry assay with high accuracy for carbapenemase detection and the differentiation of various carbapenemases, which should impact clinical microbiology laboratories and patient management.
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.