Guthrie L L, Banks S, Setiawan W, Waites K B
Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham 35233-7331, USA.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999 Apr;33(4):267-73. doi: 10.1016/s0732-8893(98)00151-5.
The MicroScan MICroSTREP MIC panel was compared with PASCO and Sensititre systems against 157 isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae chosen to include penicillin-susceptible, intermediate, and resistant strains. Arbitration testing was performed by microbroth dilution using National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards guidelines. Overall essential agreement of 94-97% and categorical agreement of 91-94% with the reference method was achieved for the three systems. There were 8 very major errors (false susceptibility) for PASCO, 10 for Sensititre, and 9 for MICroSTREP; 4 major errors (false resistance) each for PASCO and MICroSTREP, and 6 for Sensititre. Most of these errors occurred with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Minor errors (susceptible or resistant versus intermediate) totaled 47 for PASCO, 69 for Sensititre, and 53 for MICroSTREP. Minor interpretive errors were most common with penicillin and ceftriaxone. This study showed that all three MIC panels provided interpretive results comparable to one another and to the reference method.
将MicroScan MICroSTREP MIC鉴定板与PASCO和Sensititre系统针对157株肺炎链球菌分离株进行比较,这些分离株包括对青霉素敏感、中介和耐药菌株。采用美国国家临床实验室标准委员会的指南,通过微量肉汤稀释法进行仲裁试验。这三种系统与参考方法的总体基本符合率为94% - 97%,类别符合率为91% - 94%。PASCO有8个非常主要错误(假敏感),Sensititre有10个,MICroSTREP有9个;PASCO和MICroSTREP各有4个主要错误(假耐药),Sensititre有6个。这些错误大多发生在甲氧苄啶/磺胺甲恶唑检测中。PASCO的次要错误(敏感或耐药与中介)共有47个,Sensititre有69个,MICroSTREP有53个。次要解释性错误在青霉素和头孢曲松检测中最为常见。本研究表明,所有三种MIC鉴定板提供的解释结果相互可比,且与参考方法可比。