The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Outcome of Cephalosporin Treatment for Serious Infections Due to Apparently Susceptible Organisms Producing Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases: Implications for the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory
Open accessAbstract
Although extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) hydrolyze cephalosporin antibiotics, some ESBL-producing organisms are not resistant to all cephalosporins when tested in vitro. Some authors have suggested that screening klebsiellae or Escherichia coli for ESBL production is not clinically necessary, and when most recently surveyed the majority of American clinical microbiology laboratories did not make efforts to detect ESBLs. We performed a prospective, multinational study of Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia and identified 10 patients who were treated for ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae bacteremia with cephalosporins and whose infecting organisms were not resistant in vitro to the utilized cephalosporin. In addition, we reviewed 26 similar cases of severe infections which had previously been reported. Of these 36 patients, 4 had to be excluded from analysis. Of the remaining 32 patients, 100% (4 of 4) patients experienced clinical failure when MICs of the cephalosporin used for treatment were in the intermediate range and 54% (15 of 28) experienced failure when MICs of the cephalosporin used for treatment were in the susceptible range. Thus, it is clinically important to detect ESBL production by klebsiellae or E. coli even when cephalosporin MICs are in the susceptible range (≤ 8 μg/ml) and to report ESBL-producing organisms as resistant to aztreonam and all cephalosporins (with the exception of cephamycins).
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
Mermel, L. A., Allon, M., Bouza, E., Craven, D. E., Flynn, P., O'Grady, N. P., Raad, I. I., Rijnders, B. J. A., Sherertz, R. J., & Warren, D. K. (2009) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/599376 · Cited by 3,638
Freifeld, A. G., Bow, E. J., Sepkowitz, K. A., Boeckh, M. J., Ito, J. I., Mullen, C. A., Raad, I. I., Rolston, K. V., Young, J.-A. H., & Wingard, J. R. (2011) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cir073 · Cited by 3,463
Distinguishing between resistance, tolerance and persistence to antibiotic treatment
Brauner, A., Fridman, O., Gefen, O., & Balaban, N. Q. (2016) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro.2016.34 · Cited by 1,612
Resistance in Gram-Negative Bacteria: Enterobacteriaceae
Paterson, D. L. (2006) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.03.013 · Cited by 874
Self-citationJacoby, G. A., & Munoz-Price, L. S. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra041359 · Cited by 787
Metadata
- Authors
- Paterson, D. L., Ko, W.-C., Von Gottberg, A., Casellas, J. M., Mulazimoglu, L., Klugman, K. P., Bonomo, R. A., Rice, L. B., McCormack, J. G., & Yu, V. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2206-2212
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W2127429285
- Cited by
- 546
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.72
- 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: Outcome of Cephalosporin Treatment for Serious Infections Due to Apparently Susceptible Organisms Producing Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases: Implications for the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.39.6.2206-2212.2001
- The paper
- Paterson, D. L., Ko, W.-C., Von Gottberg, A., Casellas, J. M., Mulazimoglu, L., Klugman, K. P., Bonomo, R. A., Rice, L. B., McCormack, J. G., & Yu, V. L. (2001). Outcome of Cephalosporin Treatment for Serious Infections Due to Apparently Susceptible Organisms Producing Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases: Implications for the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.39.6.2206-2212.2001
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.