The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Setting and Revising Antibacterial Susceptibility Breakpoints
Open accessAbstract
SUMMARY: Clinical microbiology laboratories need to communicate results of antibacterial susceptibility testing to prescribers. Sophisticated prescribers who are knowledgeable of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antibacterials may desire no more information than the MIC of the drug in question. However, most prescribers require interpretation of antibacterial susceptibility testing results. Breakpoints can assist in determining if an antibacterial is potentially useful in the treatment of a bacterial infection. Breakpoints should be set prior to an antibacterial being used clinically. Breakpoint setting requires integration of knowledge of the wild-type distribution of MICs, assessment of the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of the antibacterial, and study of the clinical outcome of infections when the antibacterial is used. It is mandatory that breakpoints be reviewed when antibacterial agents have been in clinical use for some time, particularly if mechanisms of bacterial resistance to the drug have been described. In general, greater amounts of information on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of an antibacterial are available when breakpoints need to be revised. However, the opportunity to conduct randomized clinical studies of an antibacterial declines after the drug has been released commercially. Well-designed observational clinical studies are therefore necessary in order to provide reliable data to inform those reevaluating breakpoints. Breakpoint-setting organizations may also play a role in developing phenotypic tests for detection of resistance mechanisms, as this information may complement use of the breakpoint in some circumstances.
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
Cites
Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations
Andrews, J. M. (2001) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/48.suppl_1.5 · Cited by 4,129
Optimizing Aminoglycoside Therapy for Nosocomial Pneumonia Caused by Gram-Negative Bacteria
Kashuba, A. D. M., Nafziger, A. N., Drusano, G. L., & Bertino, J. S. (1999) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.43.3.623 · Cited by 380
Brown, P. D., Freeman, A., & Foxman, B. (2002) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/339491 · Cited by 132
Cited by
Extensive impact of non-antibiotic drugs on human gut bacteria
Maier, L., Pruteanu, M., Kuhn, M., Zeller, G., Telzerow, A., Anderson, E. E., Brochado, A. R., Fernandez, K. C., Dose, H., Mori, H., et al. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature25979 · Cited by 1,905
Antifungal drug resistance: mechanisms, epidemiology, and consequences for treatment
Pfaller, M. A. (2012) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.11.001 · Cited by 903
Pfaller, M. A., & Diekema, D. J. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.00937-12 · Cited by 484
Selective pressure of antibiotic pollution on bacteria of importance to public health
Tello, A., Austin, B., & Telfer, T. C. (2012) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.1104650 · Cited by 383
Pfaller, M. A., Diekema, D. J., Andes, D., Arendrup, M. C., Brown, S. D., Lockhart, S. R., Motyl, M., & Perlin, D. S. (2011) · Drug Resistance Updates · doi:10.1016/j.drup.2011.01.004 · Cited by 334
Metadata
- Authors
- Turnidge, J., & Paterson, D. L.
- Venue
- Clinical Microbiology Reviews
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2007-07
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 391-408
- ISSN
- 0893-8512 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-6618
- OpenAlex
- W2132112261
- Cited by
- 578
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.82
- 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: Setting and Revising Antibacterial Susceptibility Breakpoints. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/cmr.00047-06
- The paper
- Turnidge, J., & Paterson, D. L. (2007). Setting and Revising Antibacterial Susceptibility Breakpoints. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.00047-06
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.