ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2025
Evaluation of Six Commercial and Noncommercial Colistin Resistance Diagnostics.
Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 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.
- Genomic analysis of MCR-8 and NDM-5 coproducingBiosafety and health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Resistance to colistin, a last-reserve antibiotic used for treating drug-resistant infections, is rising globally. We compared six commercial and in-house diagnostics-ComASP colistin, CHROMagar COL-APSE, rapid polymyxin NP (Nordmann/Poirel) test, Sensititre, MicroScan, and Vitek 2-against ISO-standard broth microdilution (BMD) using 142 Gram-negative isolates. The isolates (Enterobacterales = 110, Acinetobacter baumannii = 21, Pseudomonas aeruginosa = 11) underwent BMD and conventional multiplex PCR screening for mcr-1-mcr-5. Sensitivity, specificity, categorical agreement (CA), major error (ME), and very major error (VME) were calculated for each test. Vitek 2 and sensititre yielded the highest CA (≥ 98%) and the lowest VME (≤ 0.0%) across taxa. ComASP showed excellent performance for A. baumannii (100% sensitivity/specificity) but slightly lower CA for P. aeruginosa (73%). CHROMagar COL-APSE demonstrated acceptable sensitivity (92%) but low specificity (69%) in Enterobacterales. MicroScan had reduced specificity in Enterobacterales (87.80%). The CHROMAgar COL-APSE efficiently identified the species with their unique colours but was the least specific (68.63%), with the highest ME in Enterobacterales. The rapid NP test provided rapid results within 4 h but showed a relatively high VME (7.84%), despite maintaining an acceptable sensitivity (92.16%) and specificity (96.08%). For laboratories with automated platforms, Vitek 2 remains optimal for colistin MIC testing; Sensititre and ComASP are suitable low-cost BMD alternatives. The Rapid NP test provides a same-day screen, but confirmatory MIC testing is advised. CHROMagar COL-APSE should be used with a ≤ 1 CFU mL⁻¹ inoculum to minimise false resistance calls. Knowing the comparative performance of these different tests will assist in choosing the best test for every species, improving on efficient diagnosis and healthcare outcomes.
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.