ライフサイエンスコーパス: antibiogram

1 ed identical antibiotic resistance profiles (antibiogram).

2 ht to introduce the concept of an escalation antibiogram.

3 d gel electrophoresis, plasmid analysis, and antibiogram.

4 nths to analyze data from urine cultures and antibiograms.

5 CLSI guidelines was observed in only 3 (9%) antibiograms.

6 rate data warehouse and to evaluate national antibiograms.

7 17.8]) compared with isolates with identical antibiograms (12.7 SNVs [95% CI, 12.5 to 12.8]) (P < 0.0

8 Thirty-two of 37 (86%) hospitals provided antibiograms; 26 of 37 (70%) also provided survey respon

9 ond-ranked agent in the meropenem escalation antibiogram (49.6%) and first in the amikacin escalation

10 (49.6%) and first in the amikacin escalation antibiogram (86.0%).

11 Lack of standardization in antibiogram (ABGM) preparation (the overall profile of a

12 In subgroup analyses, we examined escalation antibiograms across study years, individual hospitals, c

13 possible CTX-M producers on the basis of the antibiogram alone.

14 I)-based, offline smartphone application for antibiogram analysis.

15 The isolates had the same antibiogram and pulse-field gel electrophoresis pattern

16 ncluded introduction of an ED-specific urine antibiogram and UTI guideline, education, and department

17 se who analyze, present, and utilize routine antibiograms and other types of cumulative AST data repo

18 erefore, clinicians should incorporate local antibiograms and PK models to determine optimal dosing.

19 mmendations for analysis and presentation of antibiograms and provide new suggestions to enhance thes

20 tle had indistinguishable or closely related antibiograms and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis patter

21 ysis, biochemical profiles, protein spectra, antibiogram, and pathogenicity) properties, we classify

22 However, antibiograms are often not available for the outpatient

23 However, hospital antibiograms are typically generated by crude aggregatio

24 e aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibiograms as a tool for selecting empiric therapy for

25 Cumulative AST data can be used to prepare antibiograms at the individual health care facility leve

26 thods: (i) determination of a combination of antibiogram, auxotype, serovar, Lip type, and patterns o

27 vels and ultimately enable the initiation of antibiogram-based empirical antibiotic treatment, AST re

28 have expanded considerably, and uses of the antibiogram by ASPs have been addressed.

29 Escalation antibiograms can be generated to inform empiric treatmen

30 The 209 antibiograms collected from 149 institutions showed at l

31 Molecular antibiogram could overcome the major limitation of MA th

32 Unit-specific antibiograms could benefit empirical therapy decisions;

33 expert system validates the coherence of the antibiogram data and provides interpreted results.

34 ed using 2021 Veterans Health Administration antibiogram data from all states.

35 These antibiogram data may be useful in establishing the ident

36 when duplicate isolates are removed from the antibiogram data.

37 ple isolates from the same patient on annual antibiogram data.

38 s were found between specific PFGE patterns, antibiograms, dates of isolation, or geography.

39 While antibiograms display susceptibility and resistance data

40 s in vitro using a chemogram, similar to the antibiogram for microorganisms, establishing an individu

41 Conventional hospital antibiograms for E. coli and Klebsiella spp. have limite

42 reater Toronto Area, we generated escalation antibiograms for each of 12 commonly used agents.

43 We retrospectively generated hospital antibiograms for the nationwide Veterans Health Administ

44 Although the antibiogram format was not associated with decision-maki

45 Cumulative antibiograms from 2012 were reviewed for criteria on rep

46 Antibiograms from across the United States were obtained

47 Participants randomized to antibiogram groups were asked to use the antibiogram to

48 Hospital antibiograms guide initial empiric antibiotic treatment

49 h 5 of the remaining 24 strains exhibited an antibiogram identical to those of the NICU isolates, all

50 esent, supporting further study of syndromic antibiograms in clinical practice.

51 e discrimination abilities of hospital-level antibiograms in predicting individual patient AMR were m

52 as to compare patient group-specific urinary antibiograms in the ED.

53 obial susceptibility data, the institutional antibiogram is a valuable tool to guide clinicians in th

54 e (CLSI) guidance for creation of cumulative antibiograms is uncertain.

55 tic susceptibility testing (AST, also called antibiogram) is broadly used to test for antibiotic resi

56 Empirical therapy tailored to local antibiograms may facilitate favorable outcomes, while ad

57 The biochemical profile and antibiogram of each isolate suggested that the isolates

58 el was observed, significantly impacting the antibiogram of outbreak isolates.

59 s study aimed to investigate the prevalence, antibiogram of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa), a

60 The antibiogram of the isolated strains was determined using

61 this study were identified by evaluating the antibiograms of Enterobacteriaceae isolated in the UCLA

62 o rapidly screen patient samples to identify antibiograms of infecting pathogens.

63 nce in clinical therapies by identifying the antibiograms of pathogens.

64 triction endonuclease analysis and taxonomic antibiograms of strains causing the outbreak demonstrate

65 The antibiograms of these isolates were assigned to 10 antib

66 Common phenotypic antibiogram patterns were compared for all MRSA isolates

67 Molecular antibiogram performed on 17 valve specimens that resulte

68 the 6-year period, and 64% were of a single antibiogram phenotype.

69 siella species and E. coli having suspicious antibiogram phenotypes.

70 were sent a voluntary, electronic survey on antibiogram preparation practices.

71 te appropriate antibiotic treatment based on antibiogram profile and resistance genotype.

72 ntional analysis of epidemiological data and antibiogram profiles.

73 y several different typing methods including antibiograms, pulsed-field gel gel electrophoresis, and

74 This descriptive cohort study of antibiogram reporting practices included community hospi

75 Molecular antibiogram results were compared to culture-based antim

76 f phacoemulsification, including culture and antibiogram results, intracameral and topical antibiotic

77 Patient group-specific urinary antibiograms revealed distinct differences in E. coli su

78 The escalation antibiograms revealed marked shifts in likelihood of cov

79 obiologic data, and little is known about an antibiogram's reliability in predicting antimicrobial re

80 Both subpopulations had identical antibiograms, serotypes, and restriction fragment profil

81 These findings suggest that antibiograms should be reviewed thoroughly by infectious

82 rticularly in remote areas, a patient's past antibiograms should guide current treatment choices sinc

83 Twelve (38%) antibiograms specified methods used for compiling data a

84 fy areas for improvement in the reporting of antibiogram susceptibility data.

85 ed to complete vignettes using a traditional antibiogram (TA), a weighted-incidence syndromic combina

86 nation, serotyping, congo-red binding assay, antibiogram-testing, and PCR-monitoring of virulence-det

87 uated, unexpected results included the 7% of antibiograms that reported <100% vancomycin susceptibili

88 to antibiogram groups were asked to use the antibiogram to empirically prescribe an antibiotic.

89 then assessed the diagnostic accuracy of an antibiogram to predict resistance for isolates in the fo

90 ed NCCLS M39-A guidelines for preparation of antibiograms to identify areas for improvement in the re

91 The potential for antibiograms to improve empirical antibiotic decision-ma

92 cal guidelines recommend that clinicians use antibiograms to inform empiric antimicrobial therapy.

93 Requiring identical antibiograms to trigger investigation could miss importa

94 tes belonging to Nocardia asteroides complex antibiogram type IV.

95 Six antibiogram types were noted among the infection-related

96 e combination of the results of capsular and antibiogram typing can be used as a useful epidemiologic

97 Alternate strategies, such as regional antibiograms using pooled data and educational outreach

98 jective of this study was to analyze current antibiograms using the recently published NCCLS M39-A gu

99 The sensitivity and specificity of the antibiogram varied widely by antimicrobial groups and in

100 s) to guide empirical therapy (e.g., routine antibiogram) versus monitoring antimicrobial resistance,

101 Providing NH clinicians with a urinary antibiogram was associated with selection of active and

102 ll adherence to CLSI guidelines for hospital antibiograms was uncommon.

103 Urinary Escherichia coli antibiograms were compared between institutional versus

104 Escalation antibiograms were consistent across 4 study years and 6

105 Organisms with antibiograms were identified in 12 (35%) cases.

106 Differences in antibiograms were the following: lower CFZ and SXT susce

107 IE and for a more extensive use of molecular antibiogram when the culture result is negative, and MA

108 Within healthcare settings, physicians use antibiograms, which offer information on local susceptib

109 resistance used in laboratory routine is the antibiogram, whose time to obtain the results can vary f

110 The weighted incidence syndromic combination antibiogram (WISCA) is an antimicrobial stewardship tool

111 , a weighted-incidence syndromic combination antibiogram (WISCA), or no tool.