Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42469484›Full record

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.

Carmen Fernández-Bermudo, Marta Rodríguez-Rodríguez, José Manuel Ortiz de la Rosa, Carmen Soto-Gallego, José Antonio Lepe, Ángel Rodríguez-Villodres

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carmen Fernández-Bermudo *Clinical Unit of Infectious Diseases, Microbiology and Parasitology, University Hospital Virgen Del Rocío, Seville, Spain.
Marta Rodríguez-Rodríguez *Clinical Unit of Infectious Diseases, Microbiology and Parasitology, University Hospital Virgen Del Rocío, Seville, Spain.
José Manuel Ortiz de la RosaClinical Unit of Infectious Diseases, Microbiology and Parasitology, University Hospital Virgen Del Rocío, Seville, Spain.
Carmen Soto-GallegoClinical Unit of Infectious Diseases, Microbiology and Parasitology, University Hospital Virgen Del Rocío, Seville, Spain.
José Antonio Lepe *Clinical Unit of Infectious Diseases, Microbiology and Parasitology, University Hospital Virgen Del Rocío, Seville, Spain.
Ángel Rodríguez-Villodres *Clinical Unit of Infectious Diseases, Microbiology and Parasitology, University Hospital Virgen Del Rocío, Seville, Spain. anrovi1797@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6373-9724

Funding

Instituto de Salud Carlos III CP24/00137Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI22/01464Servicio Andaluz de Salud B-0042-2020
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmAmpCCefepimeEnterobacter cloacae complexMIC determination

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.