ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
Reporting antimicrobial susceptibility and detection of carbapenemase production in single and double carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative clinical isolates: a nationwide proficiency study.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. 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.
- Evaluation of a Novel In Vitro Diagnostic Immunoassay for the Rapid Qualitative Detection of KPC, NDM, OXA-48-like, IMP and VIM Carbapenemases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective was to assess the ability of Spanish clinical microbiology laboratories to report reliable carbapenem susceptibility test results and to detect carbapenemase production (CP) and/or carbapenemase genes in double (DCP) and single carbapenemase-producing (SCP) isolates. Methods: Twelve isolates (8 SCP and 4 DCP) selected from the Andalusian Reference Laboratory were sent to 83 laboratories with requests for MICs and phenotypic and genotypic tests used for CP. Results: Overall, there was lower essential agreement and a higher number of clinical errors in DCP than in SCP isolates. Phenotypic tests showed higher sensitivity for DCP isolates than for SCP isolates: lateral flow immunoassay (99.0% vs. 95.1%), carbapenem inactivation method (100% vs. 93%) and chromogenic media (100% vs. 83.3%); conversely, sensitivities for DCP versus SCP isolates was lower using disk diffusion with inhibitors (83.3% vs. 90.4%) and hydrolysis-based assays (81.3% vs. 86.1%). Molecular methods showed higher sensitivity for DCP isolates than phenotypic methods, and higher sensitivity for DCP isolates than for SCP isolates. In addition, concordance between genes detected and the reference was higher in DCP than in SCP isolates (98.9% vs. 83%). However, Conclusion: The main differences between DCP versus SCP isolates were the lower reliability of gradient strips, higher overall sensitivity of phenotypic methods for DCP isolates, but lower sensitivity with disk diffusion inhibitors and hydrolysis-based assays. Molecular assays were generally more sensitive for carbapenemase gene detection in DCP than in SCP isolates, although concordance was lower.
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.