ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2026
The shift from "MIC-Only" back to carbapenemase testing among carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales: what clinical laboratories need to know about updated CLSI guidance.
Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rising Carbapenem MICs and Clinical Dose Optimization: Bridging Resistance Surveillance and Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Strategies.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Rapid and high-sensitivity quantitative fluorescent immunoassay for detection ofFrontiers in microbiology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs) pose a major threat to global health due to limited therapeutic options and their capacity for rapid dissemination. Among these, carbapenemase-producing (CP) strains are of greatest concern, as they hydrolyze most β-lactams, and carbapenemase genes are readily spread via mobile genetic elements. Historically, clinical laboratories relied solely on minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) results and interpretive criteria to guide therapy, with carbapenemase testing performed mainly for epidemiologic purposes. However, changing carbapenemase epidemiology, the introduction of enzyme-specific novel β-lactam combination agents for treatment, and updated Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidance have renewed the importance of carbapenemase testing among carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales. The 2025 CLSI M100 update now recommends carbapenemase testing for most Enterobacterales resistant to at least one carbapenem, emphasizing differentiation of key enzymes, such as KPC, NDM, and OXA-48-like, to inform therapeutic decisions and support antimicrobial stewardship. This minireview summarizes the evolution of CLSI guidance from early breakpoint establishment through the "MIC-only" era to the current antimicrobial resistance mechanism-driven framework. Key issues addressed include the clinical limitations of prior clinical breakpoints, challenges in balancing sensitivity and specificity of screening criteria to guide carbapenemase testing in different settings, and the expanding role of rapid phenotypic and molecular detection methods. Revisions to the EDTA-modified carbapenem inactivation method (eCIM) are discussed in light of increasing co-production of metallo-beta-lactamase and serine-carbapenemases. Reintegration of carbapenemase testing into clinical workflows highlights the role of the clinical microbiology laboratory as a critical component of antimicrobial stewardship.
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.