ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
Evaluation of three variants of the carbapenem inactivation method for carbapenemase detection in
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine which of the three following phenotypic tests is the most suitable for the detection of carbapenemases in Enterobacterales: the modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM), zCIM (carbapenem inactivation method supplemented with zinc) or cCIM (carbapenem inactivation method with cloxacillin). Methods: Each test was evaluated with a set of 199 isolates representing the epidemiological situation in German hospitals. Furthermore, we wanted to establish first data for the cCIM, and evaluate whether the addition of cloxacillin improves the discrimination between carbapenemase-producing and AmpC-overproducing isolates, which have been shown to be problematic for other CIM-based assays. Results: The overall sensitivity/specificity was 96.1%/85.4% for the mCIM, 100%/94.8% for the zCIM and 94.2%/99.0% for the cCIM. For AmpC producers without carbapenemases the specificity of the cCIM was 98.6%, for the mCIM 89.0% and for the zCIM 95.9%. Conclusions: The zCIM provided the best results. The cCIM improved the performance for AmpC producers without carbapenemases.
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.