ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
Performance evaluation of four antibiotics using the BD Phoenix™ NMIC-413 antimicrobial susceptibility testing panel for carbapenem-resistant
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: The spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses significant threats to human health. In 2024, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified carbapenem-resistant Methods: A total of 314 archived Gram-negative clinical isolates were tested, including 219 Results: For CRE, the NMIC-413 panel met the acceptable standards and demonstrated higher CA values than the disk diffusion method for all four antibiotics (99.3, 96.6, 98.0, and 98.7% vs. 98.7, 96.0, 96.0, and 97.3%, respectively). For CRPA, the NMIC-413 panel also met the acceptable standards and showed superior CA values for MEM and FEP compared to the disk diffusion method (98.2 and 96.4% vs. 96.4 and 92.9%, respectively), while CA values for IPM and SCF were similar between the two methods (98.2 and 92.9% vs. 98.2 and 92.9%, respectively). Conclusion: The NMIC-413 panel demonstrated Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI)-compliant performance for all four tested antibiotics against CRE and CRPA, exhibiting superior reliability compared to the conventional disk diffusion method. Future studies should focus on establishing standardized breakpoints for SCF, expanding the detection spectrum for rare bacterial species, and conducting multicenter validation to assess regional variations. We recommend the NMIC-413 panel for AST of CRE and CRPA isolates as a practical alternative to the BMD method.
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.