ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1999
E test versus agar dilution for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of viridans group streptococci.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of methicillin-resistance gene in Staphylococcus epidermidis strains isolated from patients in Al-Zahra Hospital using polymerase chain reaction and minimum inhibitory concentration methods.Advanced biomedical research · 2013Article
- Discrepancy in antimicrobial susceptibility test results obtained for oral streptococci with the Etest and agar dilution.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2007Article
- Bloodstream and endovascular infections due to Abiotrophia defectiva and Granulicatella species.BMC infectious diseases · 2006Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Viridans group streptococci (VGS) are commonly isolated from the blood of hospitalized patients. The E test represents a convenient method for determining the MICs for VGS, but for this purpose it has not been well validated against reference methods. In this study, 180 unselected VGS isolates were identified to a species level, and the MICs of penicillin, cefuroxime, cefotaxime, and vancomycin were determined by both agar dilution and the E test. Available data regarding demographic and laboratory variables for each VGS bacteremic episode were collected, the significance of each VGS isolate was assessed, and the associations between and among laboratory and clinical variables were investigated. Among all VGS isolates, 68.3% (median of three runs) were found to be fully susceptible to penicillin by agar dilution. The E test and agar dilution showed average agreements (within +/-1 dilution) of 92.2% for penicillin, 95.7% for cefuroxime 91.3% for cefotaxime, and 86.7% for vancomycin. Agreements over serial E tests and serial agar dilutions were excellent for beta-lactam agents (intraclass correlation coefficients, >0.9) but less impressive for vancomycin. Very major error rates for the E test were </=0.7%, and combined major and minor error rates were within acceptable limits for all antimicrobial agents tested. Lysis-centrifugation culture methods were more often associated with clinically insignificant VGS isolates; otherwise, no associations between clinical and laboratory variables were noted.
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.