↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing guidelines for the interpretation of antibiotic susceptibility at a University…

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
270 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing guidelines for the interpretation of antibiotic susceptibility at a University teaching hospital in Nairobi, Kenya: a cross-sectional study
Published in
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12941-016-0135-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Kassim, Geoffrey Omuse, Zul Premji, Gunturu Revathi

Abstract

The Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) guidelines are the most popular breakpoint guidelines used in antimicrobial susceptibility testing worldwide. The EUCAST guidelines are freely available to users while CLSI is available for non-members as a package of three documents for US $500 annually. This is prohibitive for clinical microbiology laboratories in resource poor settings. We set out to compare antibiotic susceptibility determined by the two guidelines to determine whether adoption of EUCAST guidelines would significantly affect our susceptibility patterns. We reviewed minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of various antibiotics routinely reported for Escherichia coli (E. coli), Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) isolates from an automated microbiology identification system (VITEK-2) at the Aga Khan University Hospital Nairobi's Pathology department. These MICs were then analyzed using both CLSI 2015 and EUCAST 2015 guidelines and classified as resistant, intermediate or susceptible. We compared the susceptibility and agreement between the CLSI and EUCAST categorizations. Susceptibility data from a total of 5165 E. coli, 1103 S. aureus and 532 P. aeruginosa isolates were included. The concordance rates of the two guidelines for E. coli, S. aureus and P. aeruginosa ranged from 78.2 to 100 %, 94.6 to 100 % and 89.1 to 95.5 % respectively. The kappa statistics for E. coli MICs revealed perfect agreement between CLSI and EUCAST for cefotaxime, ceftriaxone and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, almost perfect agreement for ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, cefuroxime, gentamicin and ceftazidime, substantial agreement for meropenem, moderate agreement for cefepime and amoxicillin-clavulanate, fair agreement for nitrofurantoin and poor agreement for amikacin. For S. aureus the kappa statistics revealed perfect agreement for penicillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, levofloxacin, oxacillin, linezolid and vancomycin, almost perfect agreement for clindamycin, erythromycin and tetracycline and moderate agreement for gentamicin. For P. aeruginosa the kappa analysis revealed moderate to almost perfect agreement for all the anti-pseudomonal antibiotics. The results show comparable antibiotic susceptibility patterns between CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints. Given that EUCAST guidelines are freely available, it makes it easier for laboratories in resource poor settings to have an updated and readily available reference for interpreting antibiotic susceptibilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 270 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 270 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 14%
Student > Bachelor 38 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 11%
Researcher 17 6%
Unspecified 10 4%
Other 41 15%
Unknown 96 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 22 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 12 4%
Other 52 19%
Unknown 107 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2019.
All research outputs
#6,301,261
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#121
of 608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,729
of 300,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,949 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.