ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Evaluation of a simplified agar-based population analysis profiling as a practical alternative for detecting heteroresistance in clinical bacterial isolates.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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.
- Beyond susceptibility results: understanding the clinical and diagnostic burden of bacterial heteroresistance.Molecular biology reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid and accurate detection of antibiotic heteroresistance (HR) causing clinical bacterial infections is essential for prompt and effective treatment. However, current detection methods vary across laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate a Simplified Agar-based Population Analysis Profiling (SA-PAP) method as a practical alternative to the reference Population Analysis Profiling (PAP) for HR detection, and to describe the screening performance of a modified E-test.
methodsWe collected 56 carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli (CREC) and 305 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) clinical isolates. HR to tigecycline (in CREC), vancomycin, and teicoplanin (in MRSA) was assessed using the modified E-test, SA-PAP, and PAP (reference method). The screening performance of the modified E-test was evaluated descriptively, while the diagnostic agreement of SA-PAP with PAP was assessed using Cohen’s kappa.
resultsBy PAP, HR prevalence was 37.5% (21/56) to tigecycline in CREC, and 34.1% (104/305) and 53.8% (163/305) to vancomycin and teicoplanin in MRSA, respectively. Compared to PAP, the modified E-test showed variable and lower sensitivities (66.7% for CREC/tigecycline, 70.2% for MRSA/vancomycin, and 48.8% for MRSA/teicoplanin), indicating a substantial risk of false-negative results. In contrast, SA-PAP demonstrated excellent agreement (Cohen’s kappa > 0.90 for all combinations) with sensitivities of 100%, 100%, and 99.4%, and specificities of 97.1%, 95.0%, and 97.9%, respectively.
conclusionsHeteroresistance is highly prevalent among clinical CREC and MRSA isolates, underscoring the need for its detection. SA-PAP offers a reliable, simpler, and more economical alternative to the reference PAP method for HR confirmation. The modified E-test may serve as a rapid initial screen but has significant limitations due to its suboptimal sensitivity. Laboratories should consider adopting SA-PAP for accurate HR identification.
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.