ArticlePloS one2025
Comparative analysis of selected methods of carbapenemase determination among clinical Klebsiella pneumoniae.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidrug-resistantNew microbes and new infections · 2026Article
- Restoration of β-lactam activity by nacubactam combinations against extensively drug-resistant K. pneumoniae harbouring diverse carbapenem resistance gene.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the NG-Test CARBA 5 for Rapid Detection of Carbapenemases in Clinical Isolates ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Klebsiella pneumoniae is a typical opportunistic pathogen that exhibits multiple virulence factors and antibiotic resistance conditioning mechanisms. Carbapenemases are enzymes that help bacteria to exhibit the strongest resistance against antibiotics. Therefore, in routine microbiological diagnoses, it is crucial to confirm antibiotic-resistant strains, including carbapenemase-producing bacteria strains, isolated from patients. Two types of tests play an important role here: phenotypicand molecular diagnostic methods. The latter complement phenotypic tests and a mandatory procedure to confirm the detection of carbapenemases. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness and effectiveness of tests and methods used to identify and confirm the ability of clinical K. pneumoniae strains to produce carbapenemases. The production of carbapenemases was assessed using phenotypic and genetic methods. The strains tested showed complete resistance to most beta-lactams and varying sensitivity to drugs from the quinolone carbapenem group and aminoglycosides. Among the most commonly produced carbapenemases were the metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM) family. The most accurate phenotypic method for detecting carbapenemases was the NG CARBA-5 assay, and the PCR method confirmed these results. Notably, a few inconclusive results were obtained for NDM-positive and VIM-positive strains when the disk diffusion method and CIM test were used. Further, the Carba tube assay and the RAPIDEC CARBA NP assay produced questionable results for the OXA-48 strain group. This group also generated false-negative results on Carba's CHROM ID medium.
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.