Suppr超能文献

使用Adatab法和纸片法获得的抗生素敏感性结果比较。

Comparison of antibiotic susceptibility results obtained with Adatab and disc methods.

作者信息

Snell J J, Danvers M V, Gardner P S

出版信息

J Clin Pathol. 1984 Sep;37(9):1059-65. doi: 10.1136/jcp.37.9.1059.

Abstract

Strains of Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, faecal streptococci, Proteus spp, and Klebsiella spp were distributed on two occasions to two groups of laboratories, one using a commercially produced break point method (Adatab, Mast Laboratories Ltd) and the other using a disc method for susceptibility testing. Minimum inhibitory concentrations of a range of antibiotics were determined for each of the strains in the Division of Microbiological Reagents and Quality Control and a correct result of sensitive or resistant was assigned where possible to each combination of strain and antibiotic. Laboratories were asked to determine the susceptibility of the strains to those antibiotics that they would test in routine practice. Results from each laboratory were compared with the correct results. The overall error rates obtained with the Adatab and disc methods, 8% and 8.2% respectively, were not significantly different. Fewer errors were made with trimethoprim, ticarcillin, and nitrofurantoin by laboratories using Adatabs than those using discs. Fewer errors were made with gentamicin by laboratories using discs than those using Adatabs. There was no significant difference between the two groups of laboratories in reproducibility of results on repeated testing of the same strains. Laboratories using Adatabs used a wide range of different break point concentrations. The Adatab method appeared to offer no overall advantages in terms of reduced error rates or increased reproducibility of results with the strains tested.

摘要

金黄色葡萄球菌、大肠杆菌、铜绿假单胞菌、粪链球菌、变形杆菌属和克雷伯菌属菌株分两次分发给两组实验室,一组使用商业生产的断点法(Adatab,Mast Laboratories Ltd),另一组使用纸片法进行药敏试验。在微生物试剂与质量控制部门对一系列抗生素的最低抑菌浓度进行了测定,并尽可能为每种菌株与抗生素的组合确定敏感或耐药的正确结果。要求各实验室确定这些菌株对其在常规操作中会检测的那些抗生素的敏感性。将每个实验室的结果与正确结果进行比较。使用Adatab法和纸片法获得的总体错误率分别为8%和8.2%,无显著差异。与使用纸片法的实验室相比,使用Adatab的实验室在甲氧苄啶、替卡西林和呋喃妥因方面出现的错误较少。与使用Adatab的实验室相比,使用纸片法的实验室在庆大霉素方面出现的错误较少。两组实验室对同一菌株重复检测结果的可重复性无显著差异。使用Adatab的实验室使用了广泛不同的断点浓度。就所测试菌株而言,Adatab法在降低错误率或提高结果可重复性方面似乎没有总体优势。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

1
Microbiological investigation of cephalosporins.头孢菌素的微生物学研究。
Drugs. 1987;34 Suppl 2:23-43. doi: 10.2165/00003495-198700342-00005.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验