Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Singh, Mahipal

  • Google
  • 1
  • 6
  • 3

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2024Evaluation of three protocols for direct susceptibility testing for Gram-negative rods from flagged positive blood culture bottles3citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Mishra, Anwita
1 / 1 shared
Nandal, Mukesh
1 / 1 shared
Vidyarthi, Ashima Jain
1 / 2 shared
Roy, Shayak
1 / 1 shared
Yadav, Himanshu
1 / 2 shared
Das, Arghya
1 / 2 shared
Chart of publication period
2024

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Mishra, Anwita
  • Nandal, Mukesh
  • Vidyarthi, Ashima Jain
  • Roy, Shayak
  • Yadav, Himanshu
  • Das, Arghya
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Evaluation of three protocols for direct susceptibility testing for Gram-negative rods from flagged positive blood culture bottles

  • Mishra, Anwita
  • Nandal, Mukesh
  • Vidyarthi, Ashima Jain
  • Roy, Shayak
  • Yadav, Himanshu
  • Das, Arghya
  • Singh, Mahipal
Abstract

<jats:title>ABSTRACT</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title /><jats:p>Bloodstream infections are associated with high mortality, which can be reduced by targeted antibiotic therapy in the early stages of infection. Direct antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) from flagged positive blood cultures may facilitate the administration of early effective antimicrobials much before the routine AST. This study aimed to evaluate three different direct AST protocols for Gram-negative rods from flagged positive blood culture broths. Blood culture broths showing Gram-negative rods only were subjected to direct AST by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute-recommended direct disk diffusion (protocol A). Additionally, automated AST (protocol B) and Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion (protocol C) were performed with standard inoculum prepared from bacterial pellets obtained by centrifuging blood culture broths in serum separator vials. For comparison, conventional AST of isolates from solid media subculture was also performed with Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion (reference standard) and the automated method. Overall, categorical agreements of protocols A, B, and C were 97.6%, 95.7%, and 95.9%, respectively. Among Enterobacterales, minor error, major error, and very major error rates of protocol B were 3.5%, 0.36%, and 0.43%, respectively, whereas minor error, major error, and very major error rates of protocol C were 3.4%, 0.72%, and 0.21%, respectively, and among non-fermenters, protocol B had a minor error rate of 6.5%, and protocol C had a minor error rate of 4.1% and major error rate of 1.9%. All three direct AST protocols demonstrated excellent categorical agreements with the reference method. Performance of protocols B and C between Enterobacterales and non-fermenters was not statistically different.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>IMPORTANCE</jats:title><jats:p>Bloodstream infections are associated with high mortality that can be reduced by targeted antibiotic therapy in the early stages of infection. Direct antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) from flagged positive blood cultures may facilitate the administration of early effective antimicrobials much before the routine AST. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute-recommended direct AST can be performed with a limited number of antibiotic disks only. On the other hand, using an automated system for direct AST will not only allow effective laboratory workflow with reduced turnaround time but also provide the minimum inhibitory concentration values of tested antibiotics. However, using expensive automated systems for direct AST may not be feasible for resource-limited laboratories. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the CLSI-recommended method and two other direct AST protocols (one with an automated system and the other with disk diffusion) for Gram-negative rods from flagged positive blood cultures.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Topics
  • size-exclusion chromatography
  • susceptibility