Schoenknecht F D, Washington J A, Gavan T L, Thornsberry C
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 May;17(5):824-33. doi: 10.1128/AAC.17.5.824.
Four laboratories collaborated in an evaluation of the Autobac minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) test system. The MICs of ranges of MICs determined in this system were compared with the MICs obtained with a microtube modification of the International Collaborative Study broth dilution technique. A total of 1,260 strains, mostly recent clinical isolates and including multiresistant strains, were tested by the four laboratories against 10 antibiotics; 9,360 separate MIC determinations were made. There was an overall agreement of approximately 95% between the two methods. Levels of agreement below 80% were obtained with only 4 of the 104 antibiotic-species pairs. In only one of the four major organism groups (staphylococci and penicillin G) was agreement less than 85%. There was a symmetrical distribution of MIC differences between the two methods. Tests with 56 selected strains were performed in each of four laboratories in an inter- and intra-laboratory reproducibility study. Both methods showed a standard deviation (both inter- and intra-laboratory) of one-half of a twofold dilution step. The Autobac method was actually less variable than the reference method and had equivalent reproducibility. This was particularly true when the Autobac system was operated so that the results generated permitted calculations of MICs via regression analysis.
四个实验室合作对自动细菌最低抑菌浓度(MIC)测试系统进行了评估。将该系统测定的MIC范围与采用国际协作研究肉汤稀释技术的微量管改良法获得的MIC进行了比较。四个实验室共对1260株菌株(大多为近期临床分离株,包括多重耐药菌株)进行了10种抗生素的测试,共进行了9360次单独的MIC测定。两种方法总体一致性约为95%。在104对抗生素-菌种组合中,只有4对的一致性水平低于80%。在四个主要菌组中,只有一组(葡萄球菌和青霉素G)的一致性低于85%。两种方法之间的MIC差异呈对称分布。在一项实验室间和室内重复性研究中,四个实验室分别对56株选定菌株进行了测试。两种方法的标准偏差(实验室间和室内)均为两倍稀释步长的一半。自动细菌法实际上比参考方法的变异性更小,且具有相当的重复性。当操作自动细菌系统以便通过回归分析计算MIC结果时,尤其如此。