首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >First Comprehensive Evaluation of the M.I.C. Evaluator Device Compared to Etest and CLSI Broth Microdilution for MIC Testing of Aerobic Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacterial Species
【24h】

First Comprehensive Evaluation of the M.I.C. Evaluator Device Compared to Etest and CLSI Broth Microdilution for MIC Testing of Aerobic Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacterial Species

机译:对M.I.C.的首次全面评估与Etest和CLSI肉汤微稀释液相比,评估装置可对好氧革兰氏阳性菌和革兰氏阴性菌进行MIC检测

获取原文
           

摘要

The M.I.C. Evaluator strip (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Basingstoke, United Kingdom) uses a methodology similar to that of Etest. In this first assessment of the M.I.C. Evaluator device, 409 strains of aerobic Gram-positive bacteria (staphylococci, streptococci, and enterococci) and 325 strains of Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas species, and Acinetobacter species were tested by M.I.C. Evaluator strip, Etest, and broth microdilution as a reference standard. The Gram-positive bacteria included staphylococci (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, and coagulase-negative staphylococci), Streptococcus pneumoniae, beta-hemolytic streptococci and viridians group strains, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and other enterococci. The Gram-negative bacteria included 250 strains of 60 Enterobacteriaceae species plus 50 Pseudomonas and 25 Acinetobacter species. A total of 14 antimicrobial agents (depending on the species) were included. The same methodology and reading format were used for M.I.C. Evaluator strips and Etest. Broth microdilution methodology was performed according to CLSI document M07-A8. For the clinical strains, >95% of results were plus or minus one doubling dilution for all species. There were fewer than 5% minor errors, fewer than 3% major errors, and fewer than 1% very major errors. M.I.C. Evaluator strips and Etest often reported higher MICs than the reference broth microdilution method. The M.I.C. Evaluator strips provided results comparable to those of the predicate Etest device and are of value for the accurate testing of MICs for these important pathogens.
机译:M.I.C.评估板(Thermo Fisher Scientific,英国贝辛斯托克)使用的方法与Etest类似。在对M.I.C.的第一次评估中通过M.I.C.测试装置,评估了409个需氧革兰氏阳性菌(葡萄球菌,链球菌和肠球菌)和325个肠杆菌科,假单胞菌属和不动杆菌属。评估条,Etest和肉汤微量稀释液作为参考标准。革兰氏阳性菌包括葡萄球菌(耐甲氧西林的金黄色葡萄球菌,易感甲氧西林的金黄色葡萄球菌和凝固酶阴性的葡萄球菌),肺炎链球菌,β-溶血性链球菌和绿肠菌,其他耐万古霉素的肠球菌。革兰氏阴性细菌包括250株60种肠杆菌科细菌,50种假单胞菌和25种不动杆菌。总共包括14种抗菌剂(取决于种类)。 M.I.C.使用相同的方法和阅读格式评估条和测试。肉汤微稀释法根据CLSI文件M07-A8进行。对于临床菌株,> 95%的结果是所有物种的正负一倍稀释。小于5%的次要错误,小于3%的重大错误和小于1%的重大错误。 M.I.C.评估条和Etest通常报告的MIC比参考肉汤微稀释法更高。 M.I.C.评估条提供的结果可与谓词Etest装置的结果相媲美,对于准确测试这些重要病原体的MIC具有价值。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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