These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Laboratory evaluation of a rapid, automatic susceptibility testing system: report of a collaborative study.
    Author: Thornsberry C, Gavan TL, Sherris JC, Balows A, Matsen JM, Sabath LD, Schoenknecht F, Thrupp LD, Washington JA.
    Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother; 1975 Apr; 7(4):466-80. PubMed ID: 1147582.
    Abstract:
    Seven laboratories participated in a collaborative study to evaluate the Autobac 1 system. Results obtained with this assay system were compared to those obtained by the standardized Bauer-Kirby disk diffusion test, and each of these two methods was compared to the agar dilution technique. Comparison of the Autobac 1 and the disk diffusion results from the seven laboratories showed an overall average of 91.5% interpretive agreement with the 17 antimicrobial agents tested. The distribution in the levels of Autobac 1/disk diffusion agreement was such that with 13 antimicrobial drugs agreement was 90% or higher; with three, between 85 and 90%; and with one, 77% (nitrofurantoin). Comparison of the Autobac 1 and disk diffusion tests with the International Collaborative Study agar dilution test showed that both methods gave levels of agreement with the International Collaborative Study agar dilution technique that were generally high and equivalent. The average overall agreement between the agar dilution test and each of the other two methods was approximately 90%. Disagreements that did occur tended to involve organisms that were drug susceptible by the Autobac 1 system but intermediate or resistant by the other two methods. This was in part due to the narrow intermediate interpretive zone of the Autobac 1 test. In reproducibility studies with the Autobac 1 and disk diffusion methods, no significant differences were observed between the interpretive reproducibility of the two methods.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]