ReviewCureus2024
Diagnostic Test Precision of Modified Carbapenem Inactivation Method and Carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel Test for Phenotypic Detection of Carbapenemase Production in Enterobacterales: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, particularly those that produce carbapenemases, pose a significant public health concern due to very limited treatment options. The timely identification of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) is essential for putting in place efficient infection control measures and selecting appropriate antimicrobial therapies, thereby improving the clinical outcome of the patient. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the diagnostic accuracy and practicality between two phenotypic tests, namely the modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM) and carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel (Carba NP) test, in detecting carbapenemase production by Enterobacterales and thereby aiding the clinician in making a decision to choose an appropriate test for their phenotypic detection. This systematic review involved combining sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CIs), Forest plot for sensitivity and specificity, and plotting suitable summary receiver operating characteristic curve with the area under the curve. Of the 20 studies included in this review, the overall effect sizes of Carba NP and mCIM with 95% CIs were as follows: sensitivity, 91% (86-96%) and 97% (95-99%); specificity, 93% (88-97%) and 97% (93-100%); PPV, 97% and 98%; NPV, 79% and 90%; accuracy, 93% and 97%; diagnostic odds ratio, 1487.8879 and 8527.5541; and AUC, 0.85 and 1, respectively. In conclusion, the mCIM method showed superior sensitivity (97%), specificity (97%), and accuracy compared to the Carba NP test in detecting carbapenemase production, even though both these methods had a few technical limitations. The Carba NP test is rapid, affordable, and dependable, whereas mCIM is more accurate and cost-effective but time-consuming. We propose that both tests can be reliably used for screening of carbapenemase production in Enterobacterales, as endorsed by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute even in resource-limited clinical laboratories, in the order of prioritizing the mCIM method first and then followed by the Carba NP test when situation demands expedited results.
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.