ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2025
Diagnostic characteristics of the Rapid ESBL NP
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical 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.
- Point of care antimicrobial susceptibility testing.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
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
purposeTo determine the diagnostic characteristics of the phenotypic Rapid ESBL NP® test and a prototype version of the molecular ResistanceFinder 2SMART multiplex PCR for the rapid detection of ESBL in patients with urinary tract infections.
methodsThe Rapid ESBL NP® test and the ResistanceFinder 2SMART multiplex PCR were performed on direct urine samples (enterobacterales, ≥105 CFU/ml and ≥ 3 plusses of leukocytes in Gram stain) collected at Rijnstate and Radboudumc and compared to conventional urine cultures. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsIn total, 218 urine samples were collected, of which 66 contained ESBL-producing bacteria, 102 contained Gram-negative bacteria without ESBL production and 50 contained no clinically significant growth. The Rapid ESBL NP® test gave 16 (7.3%) non-interpretable results. After excluding the non-interpretable results, the test had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 96.8% (89.0-99.6), 100% (97.4–100), 100% (94.1–100) and 98.6% (94.7–99.6), respectively. Using detection of CTX-M and VEB genes as positive, the ResistanceFinder 2SMART multiplex PCR had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 95.5% (87.3–99.1), 94.1% (89.1–97.3), 87.5% (78.8–93.0) and 98.0% (94.0-99.3), respectively.
conclusionThe NPVs for both tests were high. However, the lower PPV of the ResistanceFinder2 SMART multiplex PCR could lead to increased overuse of carbapenems when implemented into clinical practice. The Rapid ESBL NP® test could be a suitable screening tool for ESBL-producing bacteria in clinical urine samples, ensuring more accurate prescription of antibiotics, though prospective validation is necessary first.
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.