The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Fourth Belgian multicentre survey of antibiotic susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To collect recent data on the susceptibility of anaerobes to antimicrobial agents with known activity against anaerobes, and to compare them with results from previous Belgian multicentre studies. METHODS: Four hundred and three strict anaerobic clinical isolates were prospectively collected from February 2011 to April 2012 in eight Belgian university hospitals. MICs were determined by one central laboratory for 11 antimicrobial agents using Etest methodology. RESULTS: According to EUCAST breakpoints, >90% of isolates were susceptible to amoxicillin/clavulanate (94%), piperacillin/tazobactam (91%), meropenem (96%), metronidazole (92%) and chloramphenicol (98%), but only 70% and 40% to clindamycin and penicillin, respectively. At CLSI recommended breakpoints, only 71% were susceptible to moxifloxacin and 79% to cefoxitin. MIC50/MIC90 values for linezolid and for tigecycline were 1/4 and 0.5/4 mg/L, respectively. When compared with survey data from 2004, no major differences in susceptibility profiles were noticed. However, the susceptibility of Prevotella spp. and other Gram-negative bacilli to clindamycin decreased from 91% in 1993-94 and 82% in 2004 to 69% in this survey. Furthermore, the susceptibility of clostridia to moxifloxacin decreased from 88% in 2004 to 66% in 2011-12 and that of fusobacteria from 90% to 71%. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with previous surveys, little evolution was seen in susceptibility, except a decline in activity of clindamycin against Prevotella spp. and other Gram-negative bacteria, and of moxifloxacin against clostridia. Since resistance was detected to all antibiotics, susceptibility testing of anaerobic isolates is indicated in severe infections to confirm appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Nagy, E., Urbán, E., & Nord, C. E. (2011) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03256.x · Cited by 277
Jeverica, S., Kolenc, U., Mueller-Premru, M., & Papst, L. (2017) · Anaerobe · doi:10.1016/j.anaerobe.2017.04.007 · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Wybo, I., Van den Bossche, D., Soetens, O., Vekens, E., Vandoorslaer, K., Claeys, G., Glupczynski, Y., Ieven, M., Melin, P., Nonhoff, C., Rodriguez-Villalobos, H., Verhaegen, J., & Piérard, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-09-05
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 155-161
- ISSN
- 0305-7453 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2091
- OpenAlex
- W2126661068
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fourth Belgian multicentre survey of antibiotic susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jac/dkt344
- The paper
- Wybo, I., Van den Bossche, D., Soetens, O., Vekens, E., Vandoorslaer, K., Claeys, G., Glupczynski, Y., Ieven, M., Melin, P., Nonhoff, C., Rodriguez-Villalobos, H., Verhaegen, J., & Piérard, D. (2014). Fourth Belgian multicentre survey of antibiotic susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkt344
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.