Microbiology Laboratory, Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel.
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020 Feb;39(2):375-384. doi: 10.1007/s10096-019-03735-4. Epub 2019 Nov 12.
The disc diffusion test is used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing worldwide. In this study, the performance of both Bio-Rad® antibiotic discs (as compared with Oxoid® discs) and the ADAGIO™ automated system for the reading of disc diffusion test results was evaluated with American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) quality control (QC) and wild strains of bacteria. Inhibition zones of both disc brands were read manually and through use of the ADAGIO™ system. Categorized interpretation of the results for each strain and antibiotic combination was summarized according to the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute MS-100 (2017 update) manual and ADAGIO™ readings. Eight ATCC QC strains and 120 different wild strains were evaluated, to give a total of 1226 antibiotic/bacteria combinations and 2486 manual readings. One major error and four minor errors (0.08% and 0.34%, respectively) were detected via manual readings of the Bio-Rad® discs as compared with the Oxoid® discs. For the same number of antibiotic/bacteria combinations, five minor errors and one major error (0.42% and 0.08%, respectively) were detected with the Bio-Rad® discs read by the ADAGIO™ system. In addition, the number of times the automatic reading needed manual edition with Bio-Rad® discs was statistically lower than it did with Oxoid® discs (3.7% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.05). These findings support the hypothesis that Bio-Rad discs are not inferior to Oxoid® discs, and the performance of the ADAGIO™ system is comparable to that of manual readings with both disc brands.
纸片扩散法测试在全球范围内用于抗菌药物敏感性测试。在这项研究中,评估了 Bio-Rad®抗生素纸片(与 Oxoid®纸片相比)和 ADAGIO™自动化系统读取纸片扩散试验结果的性能,使用了美国典型培养物保藏中心(ATCC)质量控制(QC)和野生细菌菌株。两种品牌的纸片的抑菌圈均通过手动和 ADAGIO™系统进行读取。根据临床和实验室标准协会 MS-100(2017 年更新)手册和 ADAGIO™读数,对每种菌株和抗生素组合的结果进行分类解释。评估了 8 株 ATCC QC 菌株和 120 株不同的野生菌株,总共评估了 1226 种抗生素/细菌组合和 2486 次手动读数。与 Oxoid®纸片相比,通过手动读取 Bio-Rad®纸片发现了 1 个主要错误和 4 个次要错误(分别为 0.08%和 0.34%)。对于相同数量的抗生素/细菌组合,使用 ADAGIO™系统读取 Bio-Rad®纸片发现了 5 个次要错误和 1 个主要错误(分别为 0.42%和 0.08%)。此外,Bio-Rad®纸片自动读取需要手动编辑的次数明显少于 Oxoid®纸片(3.7%比 5.7%,p<0.05)。这些发现支持了 Bio-Rad 纸片并不逊于 Oxoid®纸片的假设,并且 ADAGIO™系统的性能与两种品牌的手动读数相当。