Wexler H M, Reeves D, Finegold S M
Research Service, Veterans Administration Wadsworth Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Clin Ther. 1988;10(6):747-60.
Three currently used anaerobic susceptibility testing methods were compared: (1) the technique used at the Wadsworth Microbial Diseases Research Laboratory, (2) the technique listed as the reference standard by the National Committee on Clinical Laboratory Standards, and (3) the technique used at the Tufts New England Medical Center. Four-hundred-seventy anaerobic microorganisms, isolated from clinical specimens, were tested against cefoxitin, cefotetan, ceftizoxime, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, imipenem, and clindamycin. Significant differences were noted in mean inhibitory concentrations and percent susceptible at breakpoint among the three techniques used and varied with the antimicrobial agent and species tested.
(1)沃兹沃思微生物疾病研究实验室使用的技术;(2)被临床实验室标准委员会列为参考标准的技术;(3)塔夫茨新英格兰医疗中心使用的技术。从临床标本中分离出的470株厌氧微生物,针对头孢西丁、头孢替坦、头孢唑肟、头孢噻肟、头孢他啶、亚胺培南和克林霉素进行了测试。在所使用的三种技术之间,平均抑菌浓度和折点处的敏感百分比存在显著差异,并且随所测试的抗菌药物和菌种而变化。