Antibiotic resistance in Pakistan: a systematic review of past decade

BMC Infectious Diseases

Table 6 The number of studies about bacterial identification method, phenotypic detection method, and break point reference guideline of gram-negative isolates in the present systematic review

Characteristics	No of studies	References
Bacterial Identification method
Morphology/Biochemical testing	22 (75.863%)	[76,77,78,79,80,81,82, 84,85,86,87,88,89, 92,93,94,95,96,97,98, 100, 101]
API	2 (6.896%)	[90, 99]
PCR	2 (6.896%)	[75, 91]
Not mentioned	3 (10.345%)	[74, 83, 102]
Phenotypic detection method^∆
DDM*	26 (89.655%)	[74,75,76,77,78, 80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88, 90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100, 102]
Dilution	4 (13.793%)	[75, 78, 79, 96]
E Test_ρ	5 (17.241%)	[14, 18, 80, 90, 101]
Vitek2	1 (3.448%)	[89]
Break point references guidelines^∆
CLSI°	24 (82.759%)	[74,75,76,77,78,79,80, 82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96, 99, 101]
BSAC⁵	1 (3.448%)	[75]
Not mentioned	5 (17.241%)	[81, 97, 98, 100, 102]

DDM* Disk Diffusion Method, E Test_ρ Epsilometer test, CLSI° Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute, EUCAST^γ European Committee on Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing, BSAC₃ British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. ∆ = For phenotypic detection method and Break point references guidelines, some studies used more than one method, counted with each study characteristic; therefore there sum of percent’s is not 100

ISSN: 1471-2334