ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluation of an automated reader for disc diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility testing in a routine microbiology laboratory.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is essential for determining the in vitro activity of antimicrobial agents against specific microorganisms. Reliable data from AST is needed for the detection of resistance mechanisms which are crucial to ensure appropriate treatment of patients in healthcare settings or in the community. Automated AST readers of the inhibition zone provide valuable tools for standardizing the testing process in microbiology laboratories, enabling faster and more reliable interpretation of results. The aim of this study was to evaluate AntibiHórus, an in-house developed automated disc diffusion AST reader, by comparing its performance against manual reading of the inhibition zones using a ruler. A total of 500 ASTs, including both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, were evaluated using 22 different antimicrobial discs, resulting in 4,709 inhibition zone measurements. Manual readings with a ruler were compared with the automated readings from AntibiHórus. The overall categorical agreement (CA) between AntibiHórus and manual reading was 96.86%, with minimal error rates, 2.08% for Very Major Errors (VME), 0.30% for Major Errors (ME), and 0.76% for Minor Errors (MiE). Statistical analysis showed a strong correlation between methods (Pearson correlation coefficient R ≥ .95). The findings demonstrate that AntibiHórus is a reliable tool for routine microbiology laboratory work, enhancing the efficiency, standardization, and accuracy of AST analysis by automating inhibition zone measurement and interpretation.
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.