Suppr超能文献

使用传统和商业检测系统时,耐甲氧西林和甲氧西林敏感金黄色葡萄球菌菌株抗菌谱的实验室间差异。

Interlaboratory variation of antibiograms of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strains with conventional and commercial testing systems.

作者信息

Aldridge K E, Janney A, Sanders C V, Marier R L

出版信息

J Clin Microbiol. 1983 Nov;18(5):1226-36. doi: 10.1128/jcm.18.5.1226-1236.1983.

Abstract

Laboratory-prepared (conventional) and commercial susceptibility testing systems were compared by using a group of methicillin-resistant (MR) and methicillin-susceptible (MS) strains of Staphylococcus aureus. A group of 25 MR and 15 MS S. aureus strains were coded and tested blindly by disk diffusion, agar dilution, broth microdilution, Sensititre, Micro-Media, Sceptor, API 3600S, MicroScan, Autobac I, and MS-2 systems. All systems were incubated at 35 degrees C and read with either a manual or automated reader at the recommended times. Where applicable, systems were also read at 48 h. Among the conventional assays, the broth and agar dilution methods were comparable, both detecting 88% of the MR strains at 24 h and detecting 92 and 96%, respectively, at 48 h. The disk diffusion method was less efficient, detecting only 36 and 72% at 24 and 48 h, respectively. Detection of cephalothin resistance was low for all systems at both time periods, with agar dilution and disk diffusion being the most and least efficient, respectively. Some variability was also seen with detection of resistance to clindamycin and gentamicin. Among the MS strains, variability among the conventional systems occurred with methicillin, gentamicin, ampicillin, and penicillin. Comparison of the commercial systems with manual readers with the broth microdilution method (reference method) showed that for MR strains, the Sceptor system gave identical results at 24 and 48 h. Sensititre detected 68 and 88% of the MR strains, whereas Micro-Media was least effective detecting 12 and 80% at 24 and 48 h, respectively. None of the commercial systems detected cephalothin resistance well, with only one strain being indicated by the Sceptor and Sensititre systems at 48 h. Slight differences were also seen among the systems with clindamycin and gentamicin. With regard to the MS strains, variability among the systems was seen with methicillin, penicillin, ampicillin, clindamycin, and gentamicin. Among commercial systems with automated readers, the API system detected a greater number of MR strains than did the reference method at 24 and 48 h, 96 and 100%, respectively. The MicroScan method was comparable to the reference method detecting 80 and 88% of the MR strains at both time periods, respectively. Both Autobac I and MS-2 were much less effective in detecting MR strains, noting only 32 and 16%, respectively, at the 3- to 6-h readings. Poor detection of cephalothin resistance among MR strains was evident in all systems. Variability also occurred among the systems with clindamycin, gentamicin, and ampicillin. A single strain of the MR group was reported to be vancomycin resistant by the API system. Among the MS group, the greatest variability was seen with methicillin. Less variability occurred with penicillin, ampicillin, gentamicin, and vancomycin.

摘要

通过使用一组耐甲氧西林(MR)和甲氧西林敏感(MS)的金黄色葡萄球菌菌株,对实验室制备(传统)和商业药敏试验系统进行了比较。对一组25株MR和15株MS金黄色葡萄球菌菌株进行编码,并通过纸片扩散法、琼脂稀释法、肉汤微量稀释法、Sensititre、Micro-Media、Sceptor、API 3600S、MicroScan、Autobac I和MS-2系统进行盲法检测。所有系统均在35℃下孵育,并在推荐时间使用手动或自动读数器读取结果。在适用的情况下,系统也在48小时读取。在传统检测方法中,肉汤稀释法和琼脂稀释法相当,二者在24小时时均检测到88%的MR菌株,在48小时时分别检测到92%和96%。纸片扩散法效率较低,在24小时和48小时时分别仅检测到36%和72%。在两个时间段,所有系统对头孢噻吩耐药性的检测率均较低,琼脂稀释法和纸片扩散法分别是最有效和最无效的方法。在检测对克林霉素和庆大霉素的耐药性方面也存在一些差异。在MS菌株中,传统系统在检测甲氧西林、庆大霉素、氨苄西林和青霉素时存在差异。将带有手动读数器的商业系统与肉汤微量稀释法(参考方法)进行比较,结果显示,对于MR菌株,Sceptor系统在24小时和48小时时给出了相同的结果。Sensititre在24小时和48小时时分别检测到68%和88%的MR菌株,而Micro-Media效果最差,在24小时和48小时时分别仅检测到12%和80%。没有一个商业系统能很好地检测出头孢噻吩耐药性,只有Sceptor和Sensititre系统在48小时时检测出一株耐药菌株。在克林霉素和庆大霉素方面,各系统之间也存在细微差异。对于MS菌株,在甲氧西林、青霉素、氨苄西林、克林霉素和庆大霉素方面,各系统之间存在差异。在带有自动读数器的商业系统中,API系统在24小时和48小时时检测到的MR菌株数量比参考方法更多,分别为96%和100%。MicroScan方法与参考方法相当,在两个时间段分别检测到80%和88%的MR菌株。Autobac I和MS-2在检测MR菌株方面效果要差得多,在3至6小时读数时分别仅检测到32%和16%。在所有系统中,MR菌株对头孢噻吩耐药性的检测效果都很差。在克林霉素、庆大霉素和氨苄西林方面,各系统之间也存在差异。API系统报告MR组中有一株菌株对万古霉素耐药。在MS组中,甲氧西林的差异最大。青霉素、氨苄西林、庆大霉素和万古霉素的差异较小。

相似文献

5
Susceptibility testing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with three commercial microdilution systems.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1986 Sep;5(3):245-53. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(86)90008-8.

引用本文的文献

1
Expert systems in clinical microbiology.临床微生物学中的专家系统。
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011 Jul;24(3):515-56. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00061-10.

本文引用的文献

4
A SURVEY OF METHICILLIN RESISTANCE IN STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS.金黄色葡萄球菌耐甲氧西林情况的调查
Postgrad Med J. 1964 Dec;40(Suppl):SUPPL:170-8. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.40.suppl.170.
6
Methicillin resistance in staphylococci.葡萄球菌中的耐甲氧西林特性
Lancet. 1963 Apr 27;1(7287):904-7. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(63)91687-8.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验