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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
In vitro Evaluation of the Colistin-Carbapenem Combination in Clinical Isolates of A. baumannii Using the Checkerboard, Etest, and Time-Kill Curve Techniques
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00209 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Micheline A. H. Soudeiha, Elias A. Dahdouh, Eid Azar, Dolla K. Sarkis, Ziad Daoud |
| Abstract |
The worldwide increase in the emergence of carbapenem resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) calls for the investigation into alternative approaches for treatment. This study aims to evaluate colistin-carbapenem combinations against Acinetobacter spp., in order to potentially reduce the need for high concentrations of antibiotics in therapy. This study was conducted on 100 non-duplicate Acinetobacter isolates that were collected from different patients admitted at Saint George Hospital-University Medical Center in Beirut. The isolates were identified using API 20NE strips, which contain the necessary agents to cover a panel of biochemical tests, and confirmed by PCR amplification of blaOXA-51-like. Activities of colistin, meropenem and imipenem against Acinetobacter isolates were determined by ETEST and microdilution methods, and interpreted according to the guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. In addition, PCR amplifications of the most common beta lactamases contributing to carbapenem resistance were performed. Tri locus PCR-typing was also performed to determine the international clonality of the isolates. Checkerboard, ETEST and time kill curves were then performed to determine the effect of the colistin-carbapenem combinations. The synergistic potential of the combination was then determined by calculating the Fractional Inhibitory Concentration Index (FICI), which is an index that indicates additivity, synergism, or antagonism between the antimicrobial agents. In this study, 84% of the isolates were resistant to meropenem, 78% to imipenem, and only one strain was resistant to colistin. 79% of the isolates harbored blaOXA-23-like and pertained to the International Clone II. An additive effect for the colistin-carbapenem combination was observed using all three methods. The combination of colistin-meropenem showed better effects as compared to colistin-imipenem (p < 0.05). The colistin-meropenem and colistin-imipenem combinations also showed a decrease of 2.6 and 2.8-fold, respectively in the MIC of colistin (p < 0.001). Time kill assays additionally showed synergistic effects for a few isolates, and no bacterial re-growth was detected following a 24 h incubation. Our study showed that the combination of colistin with carbapenems could be a promising antimicrobial strategy in treating CRAB infections and potentially lowering colistin toxicity related to higher doses used in colistin monotherapy. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 27 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 30 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,894,903
of 22,974,684 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#4,139
of 6,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,112
of 313,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#132
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,974,684 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,474 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 313,660 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.