ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2026
Cefepime susceptibility testing in AmpC-hyperproducing Enterobacter cloacae complex: limitations of routine methods and a pragmatic diagnostic approach.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We compared and evaluated three routine methods (MicroScan, gradient diffusion and disk diffusion) with broth microdilution (BMD) for cefepime against 200 AmpC-hyperproducing Enterobacter cloacae complex isolates. Reference BMD classified 40.0% as susceptible, 39.5% as susceptible with increased exposure, and 20.5% as resistant to cefepime, according to EUCAST criteria. Categorical agreement (CA) was 63.5% for MicroScan, 73.5% for gradient diffusion, and 69.5% for disk diffusion. MicroScan showed the highest sensitivity for detecting BMD-defined resistance (82.9%) but moderate specificity (71.0%), whereas gradient diffusion and disk diffusion showed lower sensitivities (46.3% and 53.7%, respectively) but higher specificities (95.6% and 92.5%, respectively). Similar method-dependent patterns were observed using CLSI criteria. Error-rate-bound analysis confirmed that these discrepancies were not restricted to isolates with MICs close to the clinical breakpoints. A modified EUCAST-based stepwise algorithm improved the balance of performance compared with MicroScan alone, mainly by reducing overestimation of resistance, but clinically relevant misclassification persisted. Overall, no routine method or algorithm fully replaced BMD, supporting confirmatory reference testing when accurate cefepime categorization is clinically critical.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42469484What 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.