ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1998
Evaluation of a new method for rapid drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium avium complex isolates by using the mycobacteria growth indicator tube.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thiopurine drugs azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine inhibit Mycobacterium paratuberculosis growth in vitro.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2008Article
- Atypical mycobacterial infections.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reliability of the Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT [BBL]) for rapid drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) isolates was evaluated. MICs of amikacin, clarithromycin, clofazimine, ethambutol, and rifabutin were determined by the MGIT system for 16 MAC strains. The results were compared with those obtained by the BACTEC broth macrodilution method. The turnaround times were 6 to 8 days (median, 7 days) for the MGIT and 5 to 7 days (median, 6 days) for the BACTEC system. Agreements with BACTEC system-determined MICs, within +/-1 log2 dilution, were 100, 100, 88, 63, and 44% for amikacin, clofazimine, rifabutin, clarithromycin, and ethambutol, respectively. Within +/-2 log2 dilutions, agreement with BACTEC system-determined MICs increased to 100% for all the tested drugs. In addition, if MGIT-determined MICs were evaluated according to the thresholds adopted for the interpretation of BACTEC system-determined ones, ethambutol was the only drug for which susceptible strains were frequently misclassified as resistant. It is concluded that the MGIT system is a promising, nonradiometric alternative to the BACTEC method for rapid susceptibility testing of MAC isolates; however, additional studies are required to confirm our results and to determine the optimal criteria for the interpretation of ethambutol MICs.
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.