4.7 Article

Comparison of broth microdilution, E test, and agar dilution methods for antibiotic susceptibility testing of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 1062-1068

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.3.1062-1068.2003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A standardized broth microdilution method was compared to the E test and an agar dilution method for the antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli isolates. A group of 47 human clinical isolates, 37 isolates from retail poultry, and 29 isolates from living turkeys (total, 113 isolates) was included in the study. These encompassed 92 C. jejuni and 21 C. coli strains. The MICs of six antimicrobial agents were determined by the broth microdilution and E test methods, and the strains of human origin were additionally tested by the agar dilution method. In general, broth microdilution MICs agreed within 1 log, MIC increment with 90.0% of E test results and 78.7% of agar dilution test results. The agar dilution method gave much lower gentamicin MICs than the broth microdilution method, but the data were significantly (P < 0.01) correlated and there was 100% agreement in the sensitivities and specificities in the comparison of the tests. The broth microdilution method had the highest sensitivity for analysis of the susceptibilities of Campylobacter to nalidixic acid and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. The MICs of ciprofloxacin and erythromycin complied numerically by all three methods. The classification of the results and the correlation of the data demonstrated a high degree of agreement. All methods were equally suitable for the testing of the sensitivity of Campylobacter to tetracycline. Thus, the broth microdilution method appears to be an easy and reliable method for determination of the MICs of antibiotics for C. jejuni and C. coli, and it may offer an interesting alternative to MIC determination by the agar dilution technique or the E test.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据