PLOS ONE corrects a figure error in a carbapenem resistance study from Lima
A correction to a PLOS ONE study on carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacterales in Lima, Peru, addresses a graphical error in Fig 5. In panel D, susceptibility values were inadvertently assigned to the opposite carbapenemase-production categories in the visual presentation. The corrected figure now restores the intended relationship between susceptibility results and carbapenemase status.
The correction does not describe a new cohort, new sampling frame, or new antimicrobial result. It fixes the way the data were displayed.
Why a swapped panel matters in resistance surveillance
In antimicrobial resistance research, figure-level accuracy is not cosmetic. When susceptibility values are placed under the wrong carbapenemase category, the visual record can mislead readers about how a pathogen behaves when resistance mechanisms are present or absent. For a pathogen such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, where the choice between older broad-spectrum agents and newer β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations can hinge on resistance phenotype, a mislabeled panel can distort interpretation even if the underlying dataset remains unchanged.
Carbapenemase production sits at the center of that interpretation. These enzymes can dismantle carbapenem drugs and often travel with additional resistance determinants, making the clinical picture especially complex. In practice, susceptibility patterns are used to judge whether agents such as ceftazidime-avibactam or ceftolozane-tazobactam may retain activity against difficult isolates. A figure that reverses those categories can confuse the visual logic of that decision-making pathway.
The corrected panel therefore serves a simple but important purpose: it aligns the graphical message with the actual stratification used in the analysis.
The study context: resistance patterns in a reference laboratory setting
The parent article examined carbapenem resistance and susceptibility to ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacterales from a reference laboratory in Lima. The correction notice reproduces the figure legend for Fig 5, which presents antibiotic resistance and susceptibility profiles among ambulatory and hospitalized patients with Gram-negative bacterial isolates.
Fig 5 spans several related comparisons: overall resistance prevalence, resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from ambulatory and hospitalized patients, susceptibility among carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, and susceptibility in carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa by carbapenemase-production status. The corrected panel sits at the most clinically delicate intersection of those comparisons, because carbapenemase status is one of the most informative markers in contemporary resistance workups.
Even without adding any unreported numerical detail, the structure of the figure signals a familiar stewardship problem. Hospital and ambulatory isolates do not behave identically, and carbapenem resistance does not arise from a single mechanism. A chart that separates those categories correctly helps laboratorians, infectious disease clinicians, and antimicrobial stewardship teams interpret whether resistance is likely to track with enzyme production or with other phenotypic pathways.
Visual accuracy and bedside consequences
A one-panel reversal may look minor on a correction page, but the downstream consequences can be real. Susceptibility data often guide whether a resistant isolate is considered a candidate for newer agents, combination strategies, or further molecular investigation. When the visual alignment is wrong, even briefly, it can alter how a reader mentally ranks therapeutic options.
For resistant nonfermenters such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, this matters because treatment options are already constrained. Laboratory interpretation is not simply an academic exercise; it feeds into empiric escalation, de-escalation, and infection control thinking. A corrected figure protects the link between phenotype and interpretation, which is essential when reviewing surveillance data or comparing local resistance patterns across institutions.
The correction also reinforces a core feature of microbiology publishing: graphical precision is part of clinical validity. A figure is not decoration. It is often the first place clinicians look when they are trying to understand whether a resistant isolate carries a pattern that fits a known mechanism.
What the correction does and does not change
This notice changes the presentation of Fig 5, panel D. It does not announce a change in the study design, does not introduce new isolates, and does not revise the study’s stated scope. The correction is limited to the graphical assignment of susceptibility values across carbapenemase-production categories.
For readers who rely on figures for rapid interpretation, the corrected panel is the operative version. For citation purposes, the correction now stands alongside the original article as part of the permanent record.
In a resistance study built around carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens, the difference between an accurate panel and a swapped one is not trivial. It determines whether the visual evidence points in the right direction when clinicians and microbiologists assess how mechanism and susceptibility intersect in Pseudomonas aeruginosa.