...
首页> 外文期刊>Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. >Multilaboratory comparison of proficiencies in susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori and correlation between agar dilution and E test methods.
【24h】

Multilaboratory comparison of proficiencies in susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori and correlation between agar dilution and E test methods.

机译:多实验室比较幽门螺杆菌药敏试验的能力以及琼脂稀释度与E检验方法之间的相关性。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Susceptibility testing was performed at seven Canadian microbiology laboratories and the Helicobacter Reference Laboratory, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, to assess susceptibility testing proficiency and the reproducibility of the results for clarithromycin and metronidazole and to compare the Epsilometer test (E test) method to the agar dilution reference method. Control strain Helicobacter pylori ATCC 43504 (American Type Culture Collection) and 13 clinical isolates (plus duplicates of four of these strains including ATCC 43504) were tested blindly. The National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) guidelines for agar dilution testing were followed, and the same suspension of organisms was used for agar dilution and E test. Antimicrobials and E test strips were provided to the investigators. Methods were provided on a website (www.Helicobactercanada.org). Each center reported MICs within the stated range for strain ATCC 43504. Compared to the average MICs, interlaboratory agreements within 2 log(2) dilutions were 90% (range, 69 to 100%) for clarithromycin by agar dilution, with seven very major errors [VMEs], and 85% (range, 65 to 100%) by E test, with three VMEs. Interlaboratory agreements within 2 log(2) dilutions were 83% (range, 50 to 100%) for metronidazole by agar dilution, with six VMEs and eight major errors (MEs), and 75% (range, 50 to 94%) by E test, with four VMEs and four MEs. At lower and higher concentrations of antibiotic, E test MICs were slightly different from agar dilution MICs, but these differences did not result in errors. When a standardized protocol based on NCCLS guidelines was used, most participants in this study correctly identified clarithromycin- and metronidazole-susceptible and -resistant strains of H. pylori 93% of the time by either the agar dilution or E test method, and the numbers of errors were relatively equivalent by both methods.
机译:在七个加拿大微生物实验室和加拿大新斯科舍省哈利法克斯的幽门螺杆菌参考实验室进行了药敏试验,以评估药敏试验的熟练程度以及克拉霉素和甲硝唑的结果的可重复性,并与荧光计试验(E检验)方法进行比较。琼脂稀释参考法。盲目测试了对照菌株幽门螺杆菌ATCC 43504(美国典型培养物保藏中心)和13种临床分离株(包括ATCC 43504在内的4个菌株的重复品)。遵循了美国国家临床实验室标准委员会(NCCLS)琼脂稀释度测试指南,并将相同的生物悬浮液用于琼脂稀释度和E测试。抗菌剂和E试纸提供给研究人员。在网站上提供了方法(www.Helicobactercanada.org)。每个中心报告的菌株ATCC 43504的MIC均在规定范围内。与平均MIC相比,琼脂稀释克拉霉素的2 log(2)稀释度内实验室间一致性为90%(范围69至100%)。 [VME],并通过E测试通过3个VME达到85%(范围从65%到100%)。在2 log(2)稀释度内的实验室间协议分别为甲硝唑琼脂稀释度的83%(范围50至100%),六个VME和八个主要误差(ME),以及E的75%(范围50至94%)。用四个VME和四个ME测试。在较低和较高浓度的抗生素下,E检验MIC与琼脂稀释MIC略有不同,但这些差异不会导致错误。当使用基于NCCLS指南的标准化方案时,本研究的大多数参与者通过琼脂稀释或E检验方法正确鉴定了克拉霉素和甲硝唑敏感和耐药的幽门螺杆菌菌株,检出率分别为93%和两种方法的错误率相对相等。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 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