
==== Front
Cureus
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus Palo Alto (CA)

10.7759/cureus.67322
Infectious Disease
Quality Improvement
Healthcare Technology
Diagnostic Test Precision of Modified Carbapenem Inactivation Method and Carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel Test for Phenotypic Detection of Carbapenemase Production in Enterobacterales: A Systematic Review
Muacevic Alexander
Adler John R
Suriya R Vijay 1
KV Leela 1
Feliciana J Han 1
R Aishwarya 1
1 Microbiology, SRM (Sri Ramaswamy Memorial) Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, IND
Vijay Suriya R vs7389@srmist.edu.in
20 8 2024
8 2024
16 8 e6732212 7 2024
20 8 2024
Copyright © 2024, Suriya R et al.
2024
Suriya R et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
This article is available from https://www.cureus.com/articles/276960-diagnostic-test-precision-of-modified-carbapenem-inactivation-method-and-carbapenemase-nordmann-poirel-test-for-phenotypic-detection-of-carbapenemase-production-in-enterobacterales-a-systematic-review
Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, particularly those that produce carbapenemases, pose a significant public health concern due to very limited treatment options. The timely identification of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) is essential for putting in place efficient infection control measures and selecting appropriate antimicrobial therapies, thereby improving the clinical outcome of the patient. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the diagnostic accuracy and practicality between two phenotypic tests, namely the modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM) and carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel (Carba NP) test, in detecting carbapenemase production by Enterobacterales and thereby aiding the clinician in making a decision to choose an appropriate test for their phenotypic detection.

This systematic review involved combining sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CIs), Forest plot for sensitivity and specificity, and plotting suitable summary receiver operating characteristic curve with the area under the curve.

Of the 20 studies included in this review, the overall effect sizes of Carba NP and mCIM with 95% CIs were as follows: sensitivity, 91% (86-96%) and 97% (95-99%); specificity, 93% (88-97%) and 97% (93-100%); PPV, 97% and 98%; NPV, 79% and 90%; accuracy, 93% and 97%; diagnostic odds ratio, 1487.8879 and 8527.5541; and AUC, 0.85 and 1, respectively.

In conclusion, the mCIM method showed superior sensitivity (97%), specificity (97%), and accuracy compared to the Carba NP test in detecting carbapenemase production, even though both these methods had a few technical limitations. The Carba NP test is rapid, affordable, and dependable, whereas mCIM is more accurate and cost-effective but time-consuming. We propose that both tests can be reliably used for screening of carbapenemase production in Enterobacterales, as endorsed by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute even in resource-limited clinical laboratories, in the order of prioritizing the mCIM method first and then followed by the Carba NP test when situation demands expedited results.

modified carbapenem inactivation method
meropenem disk inactivation
colorimetric assay
ambler classification
clsi
carbapenemase producing enterobacterales
carbapenemase
carbapenem resistant enterobacterales
mcim
carba np
==== Body
pmcIntroduction and background

In healthcare settings, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are significant pathogens causing severe infections with high morbidity and mortality rates [1]. Various studies have indicated that carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs) are linked to mortality rates that are four times higher compared to that of carbapenem-susceptible organisms [2]. The global spread of CRE has been extensively documented over recent years [3,4]. With the recent advancements in laboratory technologies, identifying the resistance mechanisms in CRE infections is crucial for administering precise antimicrobial treatment.

Resistance to carbapenems encompasses various mechanisms such as upregulation of efflux systems, loss of the outer membrane porins, and most notably enzymatic degradation by the production of carbapenemases [5]. Carbapenemases are categorized by Ambler classification under the following classes: class A (KPC, SME, GES), class B (VIM, NDM, IMP), and class D (blaOXA-48, blaOXA-48 like) [6]. These CRE can be further categorized based on their ability to produce carbapenemase into carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) and non-carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (non-CPE). Among these, the carbapenemase producers are particularly concerning due to their higher virulence and increased potential for horizontal transmission, posing greater risks to the patients and healthcare system [7].

Since the emergence of CPE, researches on the methods for phenotypic detection have expanded steadily [8]. These include the combined disk tests , modified Hodge test, carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel (Carba NP) test and its variants, modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM), agar-based culture media with antibiotics, and automated identification systems [9]. Nevertheless, there is no single gold standard phenotypic detection method that fulfills all the requirements flawlessly. This systematic review aims to analyze two phenotypic detection methods, namely mCIM and Carba NP test, which are the only phenotypic detection methods currently endorsed by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) for detection of carbapenemase production [10,11]. The objectives of this review are to assess the accuracy of these phenotypic detection methods and to evaluate their practicality considering economic factors and clinical efficiencies.

Review

Methodology

Literature Search Process

An extensive literature search was performed on multiple databases, such as PubMed and Google Scholar, up until July 2024. The keywords for the search included "carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales" OR "carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae" AND "Carba NP" AND "mCIM". The search was limited by the date of publication between January 2018 and July 2024 and not filtered in terms of testing method, country, or research design. Additionally, references from the retrieved studies were manually reviewed.

Selection Criteria

Criteria for inclusion: The included studies evaluated the diagnostic precision of two phenotypic tests, namely mCIM and Carba NP, for the detection of CPE. The exclusion criteria for this study were as follows: Studies that were published before the year 2018 were excluded and articles published in languages other than English and those studies in which the full text could not be retrieved were excluded. Studies in which sensitivity and specificity outcomes were not analyzed. Organisms other than Enterobacterales, such as carbapenemase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Acinetobacter spp., were excluded. Additionally, studies that only analyzed one type of carbapenemase genotype and those that assessed only one phenotypic method either mCIM or Carba NP and not both were also excluded

Extraction Toolkit

A data extraction toolkit was developed to gather information on several aspects, including the first author, publication year, study design, sample size, and the methodologies employed for detection along with their corresponding sensitivity and specificity. To maintain uniformity in the screening criteria and data collection, three authors conducted a thorough examination of the literature and retrieved the necessary data. The risk of bias in the selected studies was very low as we included articles with only high scores as provided by the standard quality assessment tools. Any differences that arose were settled through thorough deliberation and by engaging a mediator until a consensus was reached.

Statistical Analysis and Data Integration

Using SPSS v.29 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp), the following metrics were assessed: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic odds ratio, and accuracy. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve associated with 95% CI for the mCIM and Carba NP test in detecting carbapenemase production in Enterobacterales was plotted along with AUC. A p-value below 0.05 was deemed to have statistical significance.

Results

Summary of Eligible and Incorporated Research

The search method yielded 488 potentially relevant publications. After removing articles based on their titles, abstracts, and eight duplicated articles, 305 articles were subjected to an initial full-text screening process. Among them, 285 research were subsequently excluded, since 119 of them were published prior to the year 2018; one was a systematic review; 16 had an irrelevant background article; 30 focused on topics outside the scope of CRE; 30 had wrong study design; 89 lacked targeted methods (i.e., 70 focused only mCIM and 19 were focused only on Carba NP). Ultimately, 20 articles were included in the analysis, consisting of studies comparing both mCIM and Carba NP [12-31]. The literature inclusion process is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1 PRISMA chart for retrieval of included articles

CRE: carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales; Carba NP: carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel; mCIM: modified carbapenem inactivation method.

Assessment of Diagnostic Efficacy of the Tests

The Carba NP test demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 91% (95% CI 86-96%) and specificity of 93% (95% CI 88-97%). These performance characteristics are plotted in Figures 2, 3. The combined averages of PPV, NPV, accuracy, and odds ratio were 97%, 79%, 93%, and 1487.8879, respectively, with AUC 0.85 (Figures 4-7).

Figure 2 Performance characteristics - sensitivity of Carba NP versus mCIM

Carba NP: carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel; mCIM: modified carbapenem inactivation method.

Figure 3 Performance characteristics - specificity of Carba NP versus mCIM

Carba NP: carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel; mCIM: modified carbapenem inactivation method.

Figure 4 Positive predictive value - Carba NP versus mCIM

Carba NP: carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel; mCIM: modified carbapenem inactivation method.

Figure 5 Negative predictive value - Carba NP versus mCIM

Carba NP: carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel; mCIM: modified carbapenem inactivation method.

Figure 6 Accuracy - Carba NP versus mCIM

Carba NP: carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel; mCIM: modified carbapenem inactivation method.

Figure 7 Integrated analysis - Carba NP versus mCIM

Carba NP: carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel; mCIM: modified carbapenem inactivation method; PPV: positive predictive value; NPV: negative predictive value.

The mCIM technique demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 95-99%) and specificity of 97% (95% CI 93-100%) (Figures 2, 3).

The combined averages of PPV, NPV, accuracy, and odds ratio were 98%, 90%, 97%, and 8527.5541, respectively, with an AUC of 1 (Figures 4-7).

The forest plots of the overall performance of Carba NP and mCIM in terms of sensitivity and specificity with 95% CIs are illustrated in Figures 8-11, respectively. 

Figure 8 Forest plot illustrating the overall performance of the Carba NP in terms of sensitivity with 95% CIs.

Carba NP: carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel; CI: confidence interval.

Figure 9 Forest plot illustrating the overall performance of the Carba NP in terms of specificity with 95% CIs.

Carba NP: carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel; CI: confidence interval.

Figure 10 Forest plot illustrating the overall performance of the mCIM in terms of sensitivity with 95% CIs.

mCIM: modified carbapenem inactivation method; CI: confidence interval.

Figure 11 Forest plot illustrating the overall performance of the mCIM in terms of specificity with 95% CIs.

mCIM: modified carbapenem inactivation method; CI: confidence interval.

The SROC curve analyses with the area under curve for Carba NP and mCIM methods are plotted in Figures 12, 13, respectively. 

Figure 12 Summary receiver operating characteristic curve of Carba NP.

AUC: area under the curve; SROC: summary receiver operating characteristic; Carba NP: carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel.

Figure 13 Summary receiver operating characteristic curve of mCIM.

AUC: area under the curve; SROC: summary receiver operating characteristic; mCIM: modified carbapenem inactivation method.

Comparison of Phenotypic Methods Based on Their Characteristics

The characteristics of Carba NP and mCIM are summarized based on their principle, requirements, turnaround time, result interpretation, accuracy, and their testing expenditure in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of characteristic features of Carba NP and mCIM.

Carba NP: carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel; mCIM: modified carbapenem inactivation method; ZnSO4.7H2O: zinc sulfate heptahydrate; NaOH: sodium hydroxide; INR: Indian rupee.

Characteristic features	Carba NP	mCIM	
Principle	Colorimetric microtube assay	Meropenem disk inactivation	
Requirements	ZnS04.7H2O, phenol red, NaOH, solution A and solution B(with imipenem)	Tryptone soya broth, meropenem disk	
Turnaround time	2 hours	18-24 hours	
Result interpretation	Observing color change	Measuring the zone of inhibition	
Sensitivity and specificity	91%; 93%                        	97%; 97%	
Cost (INR)	≈144	<72	
Limitations	Reagents are sensitive to light and should be stored at 4-8°c and have short shelf life. In certain instances, false-negative outcomes were observed when the colonies exhibited mucoid characteristics. Some tests yield invalid results.  	Only applies to Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Time consuming and not quantitative.	

Discussion

Carba NP, a rapid colorimetric microtube assay which is based on the hydrolysis of carbapenem by the carbapenemase-producing organisms, demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 93% with its potential to differentiate between carbapenemase-producing bacteria and carbapenem-resistant organisms that exhibit other resistance mechanisms [32]. The pooled specificity could have been augmented to approximately 96% if not for one study [18] where the specificity was as low as 25% bringing down the overall average of specificity to 92%. Moreover, Carba NP exhibited a low sensitivity for blaOXA-48 and blaOXA-48-like β-lactamases because of their low enzymatic activity [29,30]. Additionally, few studies showed low sensitivity for the Carba NP test with those organisms producing mucoid colonies and Enterobacterales harboring GES (Guiana extended-spectrum beta-lactamase) carbapenemase [33]. For Carba NP, the "method" covariate effect was observed, with better outcomes when adhering to the CLSI guidelines compared to using a paper strip or an agar-based medium.

The mCIM is based on the principle of carbapenem disk inactivation, where the carbapenemase-producing bacteria degrades the carbapenem disk and thereby reduces the zone of inhibition when placed on to a carbapenem-sensitive Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 strain lawn culture. Despite the longer incubation duration of 4 hours (alongside overnight incubation for final interpretation) and the use of tryptic soy broth instead of saline during the inactivation step [34], the mCIM demonstrated enhanced diagnostic accuracy in detecting CPEs compared to the Carba NP test. In this analysis, the mCIM demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 96.95% and a pooled specificity of 97.14%.

Both these phenotypic detection methods have their advantages and disadvantages concerning quality control, shelf life, and turnaround time. mCIM is cost-effective and requires no special reagents or equipment, but due to the requirement of overnight incubation the turnaround time is prolonged. Carba NP is relatively more expensive because it necessitates the use of reagents which should be freshly prepared since they have a limited duration of usability.

Early detection of these CRE and distinguishing between carbapenemase producers and non-carbapenemase producers might improve the clinical outcome of the patient and save time and cost amidst the rising prevalence of CPE [8,35]. In the current scenario, phenotypic methods are unanimously recommended for routine screening purposes rather than expensive PCR-based methods that cannot detect novel unidentified genes [9]. On account of a thorough examination of these phenotypic detection methods for CPE, we have determined that the most effective screening method is to prioritize the use of the mCIM method first, followed by the Carba NP test in that order of their efficacy in diagnosis.

Limitations

Nevertheless, a holistic approach should be exercised when interpreting the effectiveness of this systematic analysis, as it has a few limitations. Specifically, the research did not incorporate combined effect sizes for some carbapenemase genes, resulting in equivocal findings regarding the effectiveness of these approaches at the molecular level. The lacunae of unpublished studies and language constraints introduces biases, including language bias and publication bias. Notable heterogeneities observed in some results remain unexplained despite exploring the potential causes. Further studies are needed to comprehensively analyze the diagnostic abilities of these techniques, by enforcing direct comparison or network-based analytical studies inclusive of the patient outcome factor and designing appropriate antimicrobial agents thereby improving the prognosis of the patient.

Notably, a meta-analysis conducted in 2019, which examined papers up until March 2019, stated that the sensitivities of Carba NP and mCIM were 97% (94-98%) and 99% (99-100%), respectively. The specificities of Carba NP and mCIM were 100% (99-100%) and 99% (96-100%), respectively [36].

Compared to the previous systematic review cited above, there is a minimal decline in the overall sensitivity and specificity in this current review for both the phenotypic detection methods Carba NP and mCIM. This difference could have been attributed to various factors such as the following: i) Pathogens can evolve over time, leading to changes in their genetic makeup or expression profiles. ii) The current study population might differ in terms of demographics, immune status, or exposure history compared to the population in which the method was previously validated. iii) Variations in laboratory techniques, reagents, equipment, or protocols over time can affect the performance of diagnostic tests. Even a minor change in procedures or environmental conditions can lead to differences in test outcomes. iv) Due to the appearance of novel variants or strains of pathogens, the method's reliance on phenotypic traits for identification may no longer accurately represent the majority of circulating strains. This discrepancy could potentially reduce the accuracy and precision of the test. v) Lapses in quality control methods, reagents, or equipment performance issues or subjective interpretation in phenotypic assays can influence the test reliability and reproducibility.

Conclusions

In this systematic review targeted at comparing the precision between two phenotypic methods in detecting carbapenemase production by Enterobacterales, the mCIM method showed a superior sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and applicability compared to the Carba NP test in a majority of the studies, while some studies showed only a trivial difference in values, even though both these methods had a few technical limitations. As discussed, the Carba NP test is a more rapid, dependable method but necessitates the use of freshly prepared reagents with shorter shelf life, whereas mCIM is more accurate and cost-effective but time-consuming. To conclude, despite very few constraints, we suggest that both tests can be used for screening of carbapenemase production in Enterobacterales but prioritizing the benefits of implementation of the mCIM method over the Carba NP test in resource-limited clinical laboratories. To determine the specific reason for the reduced sensitivity and specificity of the phenotypic detection methods in the current review compared to the earlier studies, a detailed analysis comparing the current conditions with those under which the method was originally validated would be necessary which has been routinely conducted and updated in the CLSI guidelines. This could involve a reassessment of the method's performance characteristics, validation against current standard protocols, and consideration of any changes or developments in the field since its initial validation. Moreover, this review highlights the need for innovation and implementation of newer phenotypic detection methodologies that are better aligned and suitable for contemporary laboratory diagnostics thereby yielding greater benefits.

Disclosures

Author Contributions

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:

Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work.

Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.

Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Concept and design:  Vijay Suriya R, Leela KV, Han Feliciana J, Aishwarya R

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data:  Vijay Suriya R, Leela KV, Han Feliciana J, Aishwarya R

Drafting of the manuscript:  Vijay Suriya R, Leela KV, Han Feliciana J, Aishwarya R

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:  Vijay Suriya R, Leela KV, Han Feliciana J, Aishwarya R

Supervision:  Vijay Suriya R, Leela KV, Han Feliciana J, Aishwarya R
==== Refs
References

1 Deaths attributable to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections Emerg Infect Dis Falagas ME Tansarli GS Karageorgopoulos DE Vardakas KZ 1170 1175 20 2014 24959688
2 Incidence and all-cause mortality rates in neonates infected with carbapenem resistant organisms Front Trop Dis Thomas R Ondongo-Ezhet C Motsoaledi N Sharland M Clements M Velaphi S 3 2022
3 Spread of carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae at tertiary care cancer hospital in Egypt Infect Dis (Lond) ElMahallawy HA Zafer MM Amin MA Ragab MM Al-Agamy MH 560 564 50 2018 29373938
4 Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections: Taiwan aspects Front Microbiol Jean SS Lee NY Tang HJ Lu MC Ko WC Hsueh PR 2888 9 2018 30538692
5 Plasmid evolution in carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: A review Ann N Y Acad Sci Kopotsa K Osei Sekyere J Mbelle NM 61 91 1457 2019 31469443
6 Diversity and proliferation of metallo-β-lactamases: A clarion call for clinically effective metallo-β-lactamase inhibitors Appl Environ Microbiol Somboro AM Osei Sekyere J Amoako DG Essack SY Bester LA 0 18 84 2018
7 Comparing the outcomes of patients with carbapenemase-producing and non-carbapenemase-producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia Clin Infect Dis Tamma PD Goodman KE Harris AD Tekle T Roberts A Taiwo A Simner PJ 257 264 64 2017 28013264
8 Review of established and innovative detection methods for carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria J Appl Microbiol Osei Sekyere J Govinden U Essack SY 1219 1233 119 2015 26251303
9 How to detect carbapenemase producers? A literature review of phenotypic and molecular methods J Microbiol Methods Hammoudi D Moubareck CA Sarkis DK 106 118 107 2014 25304059
10 Rapidec Carba NP test for rapid detection of carbapenemase producers J Clin Microbiol Poirel L Nordmann P 3003 3008 53 2015 26085619
11 Modified carbapenem inactivation method for phenotypic detection of carbapenemase production among Enterobacteriaceae J Clin Microbiol Pierce VM Simner PJ Lonsway DR 2321 2333 55 2017 28381609
12 Comparison of Carba NP-direct, carbapenem inactivation method, and β-CARBA tests for detection of carbapenemase production in Enterobacteriaceae Microb Drug Resist Bayraktar B Barış A Malkoçoğlu G Erdemir D Kına N 97 102 25 2019 29694266
13 Systematic comparison of four methods for detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales directly from blood cultures J Clin Microbiol Meier M Hamprecht A 0 19 57 2019
14 Comparison of four low-cost carbapenemase detection tests and a proposal of an algorithm for early detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in resource-limited settings PLoS One Kumudunie WG Wijesooriya LI Wijayasinghe YS 0 16 2021
15 Comparison of the Xpert Carba-R and NG-Test CARBA5 for the detection of carbapenemases in an IMP-type carbapenemase endemic region in Japan J Infect Chemother Kanahashi T Matsumura Y Yamamoto M Tanaka M Nagao M 503 506 27 2021 33214070
16 Carbapenemase detection testing in the era of ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant KPC-producing Enterobacterales: A 2-year experience J Glob Antimicrob Resist Bianco G Boattini M Iannaccone M 411 414 24 2021 33621692
17 Evaluation of NitroSpeed-Carba NP test for rapid identification among different classes of carbapenemases in Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Int J Infect Dis Wang L Jia H Sun Y 415 420 106 2021 33864920
18 Diagnostic accuracy and agreement between four phenotypic carbapenemase detection tests among Enterobacterales J Glob Infect Dis Farooqui F Irfan S Laiq SM 133 138 13 2021 34703153
19 HB&L system for rapid phenotypic detection of clinical carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales isolates J Glob Antimicrob Resist Wei M Wang P Wang S Yang C Gu L 272 278 26 2021 34284124
20 Comparative evaluation of the modified carbapenem inactivation method for phenotypic detection of Guiana extended-spectrum β-lactamase-type carbapenemases in Enterobacterales Lab Med Lee AJ Suh HS 578 583 52 2021 33928355
21 Performance evaluation of diagnostic assays for detection and classification of carbapenemase-producing organisms Antibiotics (Basel) Zhang A Wang X Liang X Zhou C Wang Q Zhang J Wang H 1457 10 2021 34943669
22 Comparison of sCIM and other phenotypic detection methods for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales Microbiol Spectr Hosoda T Doi Y Suzuki M 0 9 2021
23 Comparison of the performance of phenotypic methods for the detection of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in clinical practice Front Cell Infect Microbiol Zhang Z Wang D Li Y Liu Y Qin X 849564 12 2022 35265537
24 Performance of carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel, modified carbapenem inactivation, and EDTA carbapenem inactivation methods for detecting carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates Microb Drug Resist Sarva K Marimuthu Ragavan R Tadi LJ Raja S Narasingam A 504 509 29 2023 37729073
25 Detection of rare carbapenemases in Enterobacterales-comparison of two colorimetric and three CIM-based carbapenemase assays Microbiol Spectr Schaffarczyk L Noster J Stelzer Y Sattler J Gatermann S Hamprecht A 0 12 2024
26 Evaluation of the rapid carbapenem inactivation method (rCIM): A phenotypic screening test for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae J Antimicrob Chemother Muntean MM Muntean AA Gauthier L 900 908 73 2018 29351668
27 Evaluation of the modified carbapenem inactivation method for the detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae J Infect Chemother Kuchibiro T Komatsu M Yamasaki K 262 266 24 2018 29248418
28 Evaluation of modified carbapenem inactivation method for suspected carbapenemase among Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates Oncotarget Yu B Dong D Wang M Guo Y Yin D Hu F 29233 29237 9 2018 30018748
29 Carbapenemase-producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae from Bangkok, Thailand, and their detection by the Carba NP and modified carbapenem inactivation method tests Microb Drug Resist Laolerd W Akeda Y Preeyanon L Ratthawongjirakul P Santanirand P 1006 1011 24 2018 29782216
30 Diagnostic accuracy of BD Phoenix CPO Detect for carbapenemase production in 190 Enterobacteriaceae isolates J Clin Microbiol Ong CH Ratnayake L Ang ML Lin RT Chan DS 0 18 56 2018
31 Comparative evaluation of phenotypic and genotypic methods for the rapid and cost-effective detection of carbapenemases in extensively drug resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Indian J Med Microbiol Kundu J Rathore S Kanaujia R 65 70 42 2023 36229350
32 Rapid detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae Emerg Infect Dis Nordmann P Poirel L Dortet L 1503 1507 18 2012 22932472
33 Comparison of existing phenotypic and genotypic tests for the detection of NDM and GES carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae J Pure Appl Microbiol Sekyere JO Govinden U Essack SY 2585 2591 10 2016
34 Is this the carbapenemase test we've been waiting for? A multicenter evaluation of the modified carbapenem inactivation method J Clin Microbiol Butler-Wu SM Abbott AN 2309 2312 55 2017 28615469
35 Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal screening for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in hospital inpatients Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Lapointe-Shaw L Voruganti T Kohler P Thein HH Sander B McGeer A 1047 1055 36 2017 28078557
36 Accuracy and applicability of different phenotypic methods for carbapenemase detection in Enterobacteriaceae: A systematic review and meta-analysis J Glob Antimicrob Resist Zhong H Wu ML Feng WJ Huang SF Yang P 138 147 21 2020 31639543
