ArticleCureus2025
The Evaluation of Two Colistin Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Methods: A Comparative Study of MicroScan Walkaway 96 Plus ID/AST and Colistin Broth Disc Elution Test at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Punjab.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective The rise of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria poses significant challenges in clinical settings, especially concerning colistin, a last-resort antibiotic. This study sought to compare two colistin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing methods: the automated MicroScan Walkaway 96 Plus AST system and the colistin broth disc elution (CBDE) test, particularly in (MBL)-producing Gram-negative organisms. The study aimed to evaluate the incidence of major errors (MEs) and very major errors (VMEs) in colistin susceptibility results between the two methods and to assess the comparative reliability and accuracy of these techniques for detecting colistin resistance. Materials and methods A study was conducted from October 2022 to September 2023 at a tertiary care hospital in Ludhiana, Punjab, involving 105 Gram-negative bacterial isolates from patient samples, including pus, blood, body fluids, and urine. Colistin susceptibility was assessed using the MicroScan Walkaway 96 Plus system and the CBDE method. Errors in susceptibility results were categorized as MEs and VMEs. Descriptive statistics were used for categorical and quantitative variables. Kappa agreement was calculated to evaluate the agreement between the two methods. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY), with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results The study found that 86.67% of isolates showed intermediate susceptibility by MicroScan, compared to 95.24% using the CBDE test. A total of 10 MEs (9.52%) and one VME (0.95%) were identified. The study also observed discrepancies in colistin resistance rates, particularly for
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.