Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 514

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of the Hodge Test and the Imipenem-EDTA Double-Disk Synergy Test for Differentiating Metallo-β-Lactamase-Producing Isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp

Open access
Lee, K., Lim, Y. S., Yong, D., Yum, J. H., Chong, Y.·2003·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Gram-negative bacilli with acquired metallo-β-lactamase (MBL) production have been increasingly reported in some countries, necessitating their detection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Hodge test and those of the imipenem (IPM)-EDTA, ceftazidime (CAZ)-mercaptopropionic acid (MPA), and CAZ-sodium mercaptoacetic acid (SMA) double-disk synergy tests (DDSTs). The efficiencies of testing CAZ-resistant and IPM-nonsusceptible isolates were also compared. Strains used for the evaluation were known IMP-1 and VIM-2 MBL-producing isolates and consecutive and CAZ-nonsusceptible isolates of pseudomonads and acinetobacters. The performance of the Hodge test was improved by addition of zinc sulfate (140 μg/disk) to an IPM disk. In DDSTs, EDTA (ca. 1,900 μg) disks were better at detecting MBL-producing strains among pseudomonads, while MPA (3 μl) and SMA (3 mg) disks performed better for acinetobacters. EDTA (ca. 750 μg)-plus-SMA (ca. 2 mg) disks performed better than EDTA, MPA, or SMA disks with both organisms. CAZ-SMA DDSTs failed to detect 22 of 80 (28%) MBL-producing acinetobacters. In conclusion, use of an IPM disk and an EDTA (750 μg)-plus-SMA (2 mg) disk improves performance, and testing IPM-nonsusceptible isolates rather than CAZ-resistant isolates could reduce screening work. Further evaluation of the test is required for the detection of other types of MBL-producing gram-negative bacilli.

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/jcm.41.10.4623-4629.2003

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 514

Metadata

Authors
Lee, K., Lim, Y. S., Yong, D., Yum, J. H., & Chong, Y.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2003-10
Volume
41
Issue
10
Pages
4623-4629
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2081988169
Cited by
514
References
1
FWCI
3.71
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: Evaluation of the Hodge Test and the Imipenem-EDTA Double-Disk Synergy Test for Differentiating Metallo-β-Lactamase-Producing Isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.41.10.4623-4629.2003
The paper
Lee, K., Lim, Y. S., Yong, D., Yum, J. H., & Chong, Y. (2003). Evaluation of the Hodge Test and the Imipenem-EDTA Double-Disk Synergy Test for Differentiating Metallo-β-Lactamase-Producing Isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.41.10.4623-4629.2003

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.