Véron M, Ghnassia J C, Berche P, Daoulas-Le Bourdellès F, Avril J L, Fauchère J L, de Meirleire F, Descamps P
Ann Microbiol (Paris). 1978 May-Jun;129(4):473-502.
A performance analysis was established between three methods for testing of bacterial susceptibility to sixteen antibiotics: agar dilution or minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) method, agar diffusion or DISK method, and semi-automatic dilution in liquid medium or ABACR method. Precision of the three methods was determined using three reference strains in repetition experiments (9 repetitions for MIC, 60 repetitions for both DISK and ABAC). The results show that MIC method was the most precise, and that the precision of DISK and ABAC methods was not sifnificantly different. Fidelity of both DISK and ABAC methods was compared in taking as reference the MIC of 200 wild strains of Gram-negative bacteria. Omitting the data concerning trimethoprim-sulfamethozoaxol, the results were found concordant between DISK and MIC methods in 68.6 percent of the cases, between ABAC and MIC methods in 73.6 percent, and between ABAC and DISK methods in 68.9 percent. With regard to MIC, ABAC method gave results slightly better than those of DISK method, especially for five antibiotics: gentamicin, minocyclin, doxycylin, chloramphenicol and polymyxin B. So, the ABAC method looks very interesting for a semi-automatic routine method in testing bacterial susceptibility to antibiotics.
对三种检测细菌对16种抗生素敏感性的方法进行了性能分析：琼脂稀释法或最低抑菌浓度（MIC）法、琼脂扩散法或纸片法以及液体培养基半自动稀释法或ABACR法。在重复实验中使用三种参考菌株确定了这三种方法的精密度（MIC法重复9次，纸片法和ABACR法均重复60次）。结果表明，MIC法最为精确，纸片法和ABACR法的精密度无显著差异。以200株革兰氏阴性菌野生菌株的MIC为参考，比较了纸片法和ABACR法的准确性。不考虑甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲恶唑的数据，发现纸片法与MIC法在68.6%的病例中结果一致，ABACR法与MIC法在73.6%的病例中结果一致，ABACR法与纸片法在68.9%的病例中结果一致。就MIC而言，ABACR法的结果略优于纸片法，尤其是对庆大霉素、米诺环素、多西环素、氯霉素和多粘菌素B这五种抗生素。因此，ABACR法作为一种检测细菌对抗生素敏感性的半自动常规方法看起来很有吸引力。
