ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2026
Performance of EUCAST disc diffusion and supplementary methods to detect reduced susceptibility to linezolid in enterococci- the NordicAST LRE-study.
Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis multicentre study aimed to assess performance of the EUCAST disc diffusion (DD) and MIC methods for linezolid susceptibility testing in a genetically diverse strain collection.
methodsNordic clinical microbiology laboratories (n = 83) were invited to test a blinded collection of well-characterized Enterococcus faecalis (n = 10) and Enterococcus faecium (n = 10) strains using the EUCAST DD and gradient tests [Etest and MIC Test strips (MTS)] from two manufacturers (bioMerieux and Liofilchem). Results were compared to reference broth microdilution (BMD) MICs and genotype (presence/absence of linezolid resistance determinants).
resultsForty-five laboratories provided DD, and 41 gradient test results. Comparing DD with reference MICs and genotype yielded overall categorical agreements (CA) of 87.0% and 97.8%, respectively. Essential agreement (EA) was 99.7% for Etest (bias +10.0%) and 84.5% for MTS (bias +71.0%). Susceptibility categorization with Etest and MTS showed CA of 90.5% and 84.1% with reference MICs, and 82.9% and 98.6% with genotype, respectively. Most discrepancies involved strains with borderline linezolid MICs (4-8 mg/L) and known linezolid resistance mechanisms. Linezolid exposure of strains with MIC 4 mg/L carrying transferable resistance genes (optrA or poxtA), led to MIC increasing above the clinical breakpoint.
conclusionsEtest and EUCAST DD had the highest CAs with linezolid reference MIC. EUCAST DD method and MTS gradient test consistently detected strains with confirmed resistance mechanisms. Our findings highlight the potential clinical implications of resistance determinants in MIC borderline strains and support the need for an area of technical uncertainty or a warning in breakpoint tables for linezolid in enterococci.
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.