ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2026
Comparison of three immunochromatographic assays for the rapid detection of CTX-M in Enterobacterales.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2026. 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 the NG-TESTJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTwo lateral flow immunochromatographic assays are currently available for the rapid detection of CTX-M enzymes in Enterobacterales, RESIST CTX-M (Coris BioConcept, Gembloux, Belgium) and NG-Test CTX-M MULTI (NG Biotech, Guipry, France). The NG-Test CTX-M MULTI is designed to detect all CTX-M enzymes. The RESIST CTX-M detects CTX-M from the M-15 and the M-14 group for V1.0, CTX-M from the M-15 and the M-14/M-8 groups for V1.1.
methodThe performances of the two versions of the RESIST CTX-M test (V1.0 and V1.1) and the NG-Test CTX-M MULTI were assessed against a collection of 140 non-redundant Enterobacterales isolates characterized for their content in β-lactamases. β-lactamases content was established from genotypic analysis to collect a broad diversity of resistance mechanisms and bacterial strains, including 74 ESBL-producing strains (CTX-M (n = 56), other ESBLs (n = 18) either alone or associated with other β-lactamases), 22 strains overproducing chromosomal AmpC, 13 strains producing plasmid-encoded AmpC, 7 carbapenemase-producing strains, 3 strains combining the production of several β-lactamases other than ESBL and 21 strains that produced other β-lactamases.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of NG-Test CTX-M MULTI for detecting CTX-M were 98.2% and 85.7%, respectively. They were 87.2% and 93.5% for RESIST CTX-M V1.0 for CTX-M of the M-1 and M-9 groups versus 94.3% and 93.1% for RESIST CTX-M V1.1 for CTX-M of the M-1 and M-9/8 groups.
conclusionLateral flow immunochromatographic assays are rapid and reliable tests for the detection of CTX-M production. The NG-Test CTX-M MULTI and RESIST CTX-M V1.1 were the most efficient. However, one limitation of the different assays is the risk of false-positive results with strains belonging to the K. oxytoca and C. farmeri/sedlakii/amalonaticus complexes, which overproduce their chromosomal β-lactamase.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41186667What 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.