ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Colistin, Meropenem-Vaborbactam, Imipenem-Relebactam, and Eravacycline Testing in Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Rods: A Comparative Evaluation of Broth Microdilution, Gradient Test, and VITEK 2.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Phenotypic, PCR, and whole-genome sequencing characterization of carbapenem-resistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the VITEK 2 AST-N439 card for susceptibility testing of novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations and colistin in carbapenem-non-susceptible gram-negative bacilli.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of different assays for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination for reserve antibiotics in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CREs),
methodsAn analysis was conducted on 100 consecutive isolates: 50 CREs, 35 CRPAs, and 15 CRABs. Sensititre broth microdilution was used as a reference standard to evaluate the performance of VITEK 2 card AST-XN24 (bioMérieux), the respective gradient tests (bioMérieux), and UMIC colistin broth microdilution test strips (Bruker Daltonics). Errors, essential agreement (EA), and categorical agreement of MICs for colistin (COL), meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB), imipenem-relebactam (IRL), and eravacycline (ERV) were assessed.
resultsThe agreement between both of the COL broth microdilution (BMD) methods was perfect (100/100). The gradient test and VITEK 2 analysis yielded comparable EA rates (92/100 and 72/79, respectively), with the latter not registering any very major errors (VMEs). The MVB gradient test achieved EA in 66 of 85 isolates and VITEK 2 in 70/85. For IRL, EA was reached in 69 and 64 of 85 cases by gradient test and VITEK 2 analysis, respectively. The ERV gradient test yielded false results in nearly all (12/15) CRABs but achieved EA in 46 of 50 CREs. The VITEK system recorded EA for ERV in 60 of 65 isolates.
conclusionsWe observed substantial variability in the measured MICs between BMD and the alternative methods. In only a few constellations, VITEK 2 or gradient tests could substitute the reference method. BMD is the method of choice for COL analysis, with VITEK 2 representing an alternative method for CRPA testing. Alternative methods for MVB did not provide reliable results, except for Enterobacterales, when tested with the gradient test. However, resistant results need to be confirmed by BMD. Only BMD can be used for IRL MIC determination. VITEK 2 was mostly accurate in measuring ERV MICs, while the corresponding gradient test yielded reliable results exclusively in CREs. It is essential that laboratories are aware of which testing method provides reliable results for each combination of microorganisms and reserve antibiotics.
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.