Watanabe T, Kazuno Y, Hirano F, Inouye S, Nishino T
Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1985;11(11):781-6.
Against 17 Gram-negative bacteria, excluding Proteus species, the difference between cefminox and cefotaxime was significant in terms of MIC distribution, in favour of cefotaxime, but was not significant in terms of ED50 distribution. Against 22 Proteus species, the difference between cefminox and cefotaxime was not significant in terms of MIC distribution, but was significant for ED50 distribution, in favour of cefminox. The difference between cefminox and cefoperazone was not significant for either MIC or ED50 distribution against 17 Gram-negative bacteria, but was significant against 22 Proteus species, in favour of cefminox. The distribution of rank of the ED50/MIC ratios for cefminox was significantly lower than those for cefotaxime and cefoperazone, indicating that cefminox showed lower ED50 values than expected from the MIC values.
对于17种革兰氏阴性菌（不包括变形杆菌属），头孢米诺与头孢噻肟在MIC分布方面存在显著差异，头孢噻肟更具优势，但在ED50分布方面差异不显著。对于22种变形杆菌属细菌，头孢米诺与头孢噻肟在MIC分布方面差异不显著，但在ED50分布方面存在显著差异，头孢米诺更具优势。头孢米诺与头孢哌酮在针对17种革兰氏阴性菌的MIC或ED50分布方面差异均不显著，但在针对22种变形杆菌属细菌时存在显著差异，头孢米诺更具优势。头孢米诺的ED50/MIC比值的排名分布显著低于头孢噻肟和头孢哌酮，表明头孢米诺的ED50值低于根据MIC值预期的值。
