Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative evaluation measures the effectiveness of detection methods for carbapenemase in Enterobacterales isolates, indicating a practical solution for healthcare settings.
Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales represent a major global public health concern, and the rapid and reliable detection of carbapenemase production is of critical importance. In this study, real-time PCR was used as the reference method for carbapenemase detection, and the performance of immunochromatographic and phenotypic methods was comparatively evaluated. A total of 96 carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales isolates were included, and all were identified as carbapenemase producers by the reference method. Diagnostic performance was assessed using positive percent agreement (PPA) and overall percent agreement (OPA); negative percent agreement and negative predictive value could not be calculated due to the absence of negative isolates. The immunochromatographic test showed complete agreement with real-time PCR in detecting carbapenemase production (PPA and OPA: 100%). At the gene level, sensitivity and specificity were 100% for OXA-48 and NDM, while sensitivity for KPC was 91.7%. In the modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM), PPA and OPA values were 97.9% due to false-negative results observed in two isolates producing OXA-48 and NDM by the reference method, and its performance was slightly lower than that of the immunochromatographic method. These findings indicate that the immunochromatographic method is a rapid, reliable, and practical option for carbapenemase detection, particularly in OXA-48-endemic intensive care settings where rapid identification is critical for timely infection control and appropriate antimicrobial therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Güner et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: