2009
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.02198-08
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase Detection with Different Panels for Automated Susceptibility Testing and with a Chromogenic Medium

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
6
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
6
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Presently, most of the available diagnostic approaches for the detection of extended‐spectrum beta‐lactamase (ESBL) and carbapenemase producing bacteria are culture‐based, with unacceptable time‐to‐results for effective therapeutic management. (Carrer et al, ; Farber et al, ; Linscott and Brown, ; Reglier‐Poupet et al, ) Such diagnostic approaches include ChromID ESBL, Etest ESBL, and Vitek (bioMerieux). Additionally, there are commercially available solutions for the molecular detection of beta‐lactam resistance in Gram‐negative bacteria, like Check‐MDR (Checkpoints), Evigene (AdvanDx), Hyplex SuperBug ID (Amplex); however, these are all based on complex optical readout systems and are not suitable for POC detection as they also require demanding sample preparation and pre‐analytics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Presently, most of the available diagnostic approaches for the detection of extended‐spectrum beta‐lactamase (ESBL) and carbapenemase producing bacteria are culture‐based, with unacceptable time‐to‐results for effective therapeutic management. (Carrer et al, ; Farber et al, ; Linscott and Brown, ; Reglier‐Poupet et al, ) Such diagnostic approaches include ChromID ESBL, Etest ESBL, and Vitek (bioMerieux). Additionally, there are commercially available solutions for the molecular detection of beta‐lactam resistance in Gram‐negative bacteria, like Check‐MDR (Checkpoints), Evigene (AdvanDx), Hyplex SuperBug ID (Amplex); however, these are all based on complex optical readout systems and are not suitable for POC detection as they also require demanding sample preparation and pre‐analytics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A high rate of detection of ESBL by the E-test could be due to the inclusion of false-positive results. Färber et al [42] reported 6% false-positive results for ESBL E-test in comparison with ESBL-positive strains confirmed by the genotypic method. Notably, the diagnostic accuracy ESBL E-test is only 94% when compared with that of the molecular identification method of ESBL production [43].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The BD Phoenix ESBL test utilized the growth response to cefotaxime, ceftazidime, cefpodoxime, and ceftriaxone, with or without clavulanic acid, to detect the production of ESBL. The results were analyzed using the BDXpert system (Nippon Becton Dickinson) (14). Antibiotic susceptibilities were determined according to CLSI M100-S25.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%