Kiska D L, Kerr A, Jones M C, Chazotte N N, Eskridge B, Miller S, Jordan M, Sheaffer C, Gilligan P H
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill 27514.
J Clin Microbiol. 1995 Jan;33(1):229-32. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.1.229-232.1995.
We sought to determine if commercially available susceptibility tests were accurate in detecting penicillin resistance and relative resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae. We compared the reference MIC method with oxacillin disk screening and three commercial tests, E-test (AB Biodisk), JustOne (Radiometer America), and MicroScan Pos MIC Panel Type 6 (Baxter Diagnostics), with 80 selected clinical isolates. Thirty-three additional isolates were tested by the reference method and the E-test to further validate the latter method. Oxacillin screening was effective in detecting all penicillin-resistant and relatively resistant strains of S. pneumoniae. The MicroScan method was not effective in detecting penicillin resistance or relative resistance. The JustOne system classified only 6 (35%) of 17 resistant strains correctly, with 11 resistant strains classified as relatively resistant. The E-test correctly classified 30 (83%) of 36 resistant isolates, with 6 resistant isolates interpreted as relatively resistant. For determining penicillin MICs for S. pneumoniae, the E-test was the most accurate of the commercial systems that we studied.
我们试图确定市售的药敏试验在检测肺炎链球菌对青霉素的耐药性和相对耐药性方面是否准确。我们将参考的最低抑菌浓度(MIC)方法与苯唑西林纸片筛选法以及三种商业检测方法(E-test法(AB Biodisk公司)、JustOne法(Radiometer America公司)和MicroScan Pos MIC Panel Type 6法(Baxter Diagnostics公司))对80株选定的临床分离株进行了比较。另外33株分离株通过参考方法和E-test法进行检测,以进一步验证后者的方法。苯唑西林筛选法在检测所有耐青霉素和相对耐青霉素的肺炎链球菌菌株方面是有效的。MicroScan方法在检测青霉素耐药性或相对耐药性方面无效。JustOne系统仅正确分类了17株耐药菌株中的6株(35%),有11株耐药菌株被分类为相对耐药。E-test法正确分类了36株耐药分离株中的30株(83%),有6株耐药分离株被判定为相对耐药。对于测定肺炎链球菌的青霉素MIC,在我们研究的商业系统中,E-test法是最准确的。