ArticleBiomedicines2024
Comparison of Multiple Carbapenemase Tests Based on an Unbiased Colony-Selection Method.
Article in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) present a major threat to public health, demanding precise diagnostic techniques for their detection. Discrepancies among the CPO tests have raised concerns, partly due to limitations in detecting bacterial diversity within host specimens. We explored the impact of an unbiased colony selection on carbapenemase testing and assessed its relevance to various tests. Using the FirstAll method for unbiased colony selection to reduce bias, we compared the results from different methods, namely the modified carbapenem inactivation method/EDTA-modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM/eCIM), the Carba5, the CPO panel, and the multiplex PCR (MPCR). We compared the FirstAll method to the conventional colony selection for MPCR with seven CPO species. In addition, we evaluated the test performance on seven CPO species using MPCR as a reference and the FirstAll method as the colony-selection method. The results revealed that the selections from the FirstAll method have improved rates of carbapenemase detection, in comparison to approximately 11.2% of the CPO isolates that were noted to be false negatives in the conventional colony-selection methods. Both the Carba5 test and the CPO panel showed suboptimal performance (sensitivity/specificity: Carba5 74.6%/89.5%, CPO panel 77.2%/74.4%) in comparison to the FirstAll method. The Carba5 test provided specific carbapenemase class assignments, but the CPO panel failed in 18.7% of the cases. The Carba5 test and the CPO panel results correlated well with ceftazidime-avibactam minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs). The concordance for Class A/D with MICs was 94.7% for Carba5 and 92.7% for the CPO panel; whereas for Class B, it was 86.5% for Carba5 and 75.9% for the CPO panel. In conclusion, FirstAll, as the unbiased colony-selection method, was shown to impact carbapenemase testing. With FirstAll, the diagnostic performance of both the Carba5 and the CPO panel was found to be lower. Furthermore, the utilization of ceftazidime-avibactam guided by either the CPO panel or Carba5 was appropriate.
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.