ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2025
Evaluation of the Disk Diffusion Test for
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2025. 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.
- Diverse Genomic Mechanisms ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical Significance ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: In total, 150 BFG isolates were collected from three institutes in Korea. The agar dilution method was conducted according to the CLSI guidelines. DDT was performed following the EUCAST guideline. Fastidious anaerobe agar supplemented with 5% defibrinated horse blood was used as the culture medium. Nine antimicrobials were evaluated: penicillin, cefoxitin, cefotetan, imipenem, meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam, clindamycin, moxifloxacin, and metronidazole. Results: The categorical agreement (CA) between the two methods was >90.0% for imipenem, meropenem, clindamycin, and metronidazole. However, the CA for piperacillintazobactam was low, at 83.2%. Major errors were found: 5.4% for imipenem, 7.4% for meropenem, and 12.8% for piperacillin-tazobactam. All minor errors were <10%. We propose using the area of technical uncertainty (ATU) zone-overlapping area for susceptible and resistant strains to reduce errors in the DDT. Outside the ATU, the CAs of cefoxitin, cefotetan, and piperacillin-tazobactam were >90.0%, whereas that of moxifloxacin was increased to 88.5%. Conclusions: The DDT can be a useful alternative antimicrobial susceptibility test for BFG isolates when using the ATU zone to reduce errors.
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.