Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 230

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Multicenter Survey of the Changing In Vitro Antimicrobial Susceptibilities of Clinical Isolates of Bacteroides fragilis Group, Prevotella, Fusobacterium, Porphyromonas , and Peptostreptococcus Species

Open access
Aldridge, Kenneth E., Ashcraft, Deborah, Cambre, Karl, Pierson, Carl L., Jenkins, Stephen G., Rosenblatt, Jon E.·2001·Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Abstract

In vitro surveys of antimicrobial resistance among clinically important anaerobes are an important source of information that can be used for clinical decisions in the choice of empiric antimicrobial therapy. This study surveyed the susceptibilities of 556 clinical anaerobic isolates from four large medical centers using a broth microdilution method. Piperacillin-tazobactam was the only antimicrobial agent to which all the isolates were susceptible. Similarly, imipenem, meropenem, and metronidazole were highly active (resistance, <0.5%), whereas the lowest susceptibility rates were noted for penicillin G, ciprofloxacin, and clindamycin. For most antibiotics, blood isolates were less susceptible than isolates from intra-abdominal, obstetric-gynecologic, and other sources. All isolates of the Bacteroides fragilis group were susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam and metronidazole, while resistance to imipenem and meropenem was low (<2%). For these same isolates, resistance rates (intermediate and resistant MICs) to ampicillin-sulbactam, cefoxitin, trovafloxacin, and clindamycin were 11, 8, 7, and 29%, respectively. Among the individual species of the B. fragilis group, the highest resistance rates were noted among the following organism-drug combinations: for clindamycin, Bacteroides distasonis and Bacteroides ovatus ; for cefoxitin, Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, B. distasonis , and Bacteroides uniformis; for ampicillin-sulbactam, B. distasonis, B. ovatus , and B. uniformis ; and for trovafloxacin, Bacteroides vulgatus . For the carbapenens, imipenem resistance was noted among B. fragilis and meropenem resistance was seen among B. fragilis, B. vulgatus , and B. uniformis . With few exceptions all antimicrobial agents were highly active against isolates of Prevotella, Fusobacterium, Porphyromonas , and Peptostreptococcus . These data further establish and confirm that clinically important anaerobes can vary widely in their antimicrobial susceptibilities. Fortunately most antimicrobial agents were active against the test isolates. However, concern is warranted for what appears to be a significant increases in resistance to ampicillin-sulbactam and clindamycin.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aac.45.4.1238-1243.2001

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 230

Metadata

Authors
Aldridge, K. E., Ashcraft, D., Cambre, K., Pierson, C. L., Jenkins, S. G., & Rosenblatt, J. E.
Venue
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Published
2001-04
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
1238-1243
ISSN
  • 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6596
OpenAlex
W2114059266
Cited by
230
References
0
FWCI
5.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Multicenter Survey of the Changing In Vitro Antimicrobial Susceptibilities of Clinical Isolates of Bacteroides fragilis Group, Prevotella, Fusobacterium, Porphyromonas , and Peptostreptococcus Species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aac.45.4.1238-1243.2001
The paper
Aldridge, K. E., Ashcraft, D., Cambre, K., Pierson, C. L., Jenkins, S. G., & Rosenblatt, J. E. (2001). Multicenter Survey of the Changing In Vitro Antimicrobial Susceptibilities of Clinical Isolates of Bacteroides fragilis Group, Prevotella, Fusobacterium, Porphyromonas , and Peptostreptococcus Species. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.45.4.1238-1243.2001

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.