首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Evaluation of Vancomycin Susceptibility Testing for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Comparison of Etest and Three Automated Testing Methods
【2h】

Evaluation of Vancomycin Susceptibility Testing for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Comparison of Etest and Three Automated Testing Methods

机译:对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌的万古霉素药敏试验的评估:Etest与三种自动检测方法的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

We evaluated the ability of four commercial MIC testing systems (MicroScan, Vitek 2, Phoenix, and Etest) to detect vancomycin MIC values of ≤1 to ≥2 in 200 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains compared to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution (BMD) reference methods. Compared to the BMD method, absolute agreement (0 ± dilution) was highest for the Phoenix system (66.2%) and the MicroScan turbidity method (61.8%), followed by the Vitek 2 system (54.3%). The Etest produced MIC values 1 to 2 dilutions higher than those produced by the BMD method (36.7% agreement). Of interest, the MicroScan system (prompt method) was more likely to overcall an MIC value of 1 mg/liter (74.1%), whereas the Phoenix (76%) and Vitek 2 (20%) systems had a tendency to undercall an MIC of 2 mg/liter. The ability to correctly identify vancomycin MIC values of 1 and 2 has clinical implications and requires further evaluation.
机译:与临床和实验室标准相比,我们评估了四种商业MIC测试系统(MicroScan,Vitek 2,Phoenix和Etest)检测200株耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)菌株万古霉素MIC值≤1至≥2的能力。研究所肉汤微稀释(BMD)参考方法。与BMD方法相比,Phoenix系统(66.2%)和MicroScan浊度方法(61.8%)的绝对一致性(0±稀释)最高,其次是Vitek 2系统(54.3%)。 Etest产生的MIC值比BMD方法产生的MIC值高1-2倍(36.7%一致)。有趣的是,MicroScan系统(提示方法)更有可能超过1 mg / L的MIC值(74.1%),而Phoenix(76%)和Vitek 2(20%)的系统倾向于降低MIC。 2毫克/升。正确识别万古霉素MIC值为1和2的能力具有临床意义,需要进一步评估。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号