Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 578

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 access
Turnidge, John, Paterson, David L.·2007·Clinical Microbiology Reviews

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/cmr.00047-06

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 578

Metadata

Authors
Turnidge, J., & Paterson, D. L.
Venue
Clinical Microbiology Reviews
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.