ライフサイエンスコーパス: susceptibility test

1 and in situ SERS measurements for antibiotic susceptibility test.

2 ith high specificity using the standard disk susceptibility test.

3 x 105 cells/mL) used in standard antibiotic susceptibility tests.

4 laboratories are unable to perform colistin susceptibility testing.

5 ed by the CLSI Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing.

6 ultilocus sequence typing, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

7 ion and automated-system-based antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

8 ed bacterial identification or antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

9 e organism identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

10 g provides an avenue for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

11 015 were reviewed for incidence and standard susceptibility testing.

12 osfomycin disk is occasionally observed upon susceptibility testing.

13 be accelerated along with comprehensive drug susceptibility testing.

14 olate, less time than traditional phenotypic susceptibility testing.

15 chemistry, enzyme kinetics and antibacterial susceptibility testing.

16 he interlaboratory reproducibility of ME1111 susceptibility testing.

17 the use of amphotericin B disk diffusion for susceptibility testing.

18 4%), because 35 samples had no growth during susceptibility testing.

19 ning appropriate antibiotic therapy prior to susceptibility testing.

20 nt rely on access to rapid and reliable drug-susceptibility testing.

21 baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa during susceptibility testing.

22 de-effects and challenges with reliable drug susceptibility testing.

23 nd CG258 isolates selected for bacteriophage susceptibility testing.

24 hich our model had a 71% agreement with drug susceptibility testing.

25 87.9-95.8) when compared to phenotypic drug susceptibility testing.

26 read sequencing and additional antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

27 odilution (BMD) for performing antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

28 as were those who did not have baseline drug-susceptibility tests (2.24; 1.31-3.83).

29 Based on the reference laboratory drug susceptibility test, 394 (62%) strains were pan-suscepti

30 Among 4826 (93.5%) with drug susceptibility testing, 82 (1.7%) had MDR-TB.

31 The lack of rapid antibiotic susceptibility tests adversely affects the treatment of

32 spectrometry-based assay for the antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) of the potentially multidr

33 whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) on all isolates.

34 tion may be a reliable method for fosfomycin susceptibility testing against P. aeruginosa and stress

35 tools that can perform important antibiotic susceptibility testing against pathogenic bacteria and g

36 Antimicrobial susceptibility tests against thirteen antimicrobial agen

37 tute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing agree that carbapenemase testing

38 ions to plasmonic devices for anti-microbial susceptibility testing and advent of microbial fuel cell

39 ed through highly concordant laboratory drug susceptibility testing and in silico prediction methods.

40 to see changes in guidance for antimicrobial susceptibility testing and interpretation.

41 ict treatment response than traditional drug susceptibility testing and open avenues for personalizin

42 We defined RMR TB found on initial drug susceptibility testing and possible acquired rifampin-re

43 modifiable risk factors such as lack of drug susceptibility testing and suboptimal initial antituberc

44 We performed antimicrobial susceptibility testing and whole genome sequencing to fu

45 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing and whole genome sequencing were

46 We conducted antifungal susceptibility testing and whole-genome sequencing (WGS)

47 -free pathogen identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing, and could be readily extended fo

48 ctive quantitative measure for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and determination of minimum inh

49 -genome sequencing, expanded phenotypic drug susceptibility testing, and enhanced case management, of

50 S for pathogen identification, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and epidemiological typing.

51 alyzed using smear microscopy, culture, drug susceptibility testing, and NAAT.

52 ug-resistant tuberculosis, low rates of drug susceptibility testing, and poor access to antiretrovira

53 Serotyping, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and whole-genome sequencing were

54 Serotyping/grouping, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and/or whole genome sequencing w

55 rial cultures, molecular and phenotypic drug susceptibility tests, and radiographic studies, among ot

56 is data, the CLSI Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Tests approved the susceptibility testing

57 e electrical resistance during an antibiotic susceptibility test are correlated with the morphologica

58 the lengthy turnaround time of antimicrobial susceptibility testing are significant barriers to the t

59 men was compared with culture tests and drug susceptibility testing as reference standards.

60 tion, whole-genome sequencing and antibiotic susceptibility testing, as well as mock communities and

61 Antibiotic susceptibility test (AST) is essential in clinical diagn

62 Currently used time-consuming antibiotic susceptibility test (AST) methods limit physicians in se

63 Patient-level antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) results for Enterococcus spp.,

64 stitute (CLSI) Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST SC) is a volunteer-led, mult

65 id pathogen classification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) at the single-cell level.

66 rate and timely performance of antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) by the clinical laboratory

67 Routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) can prevent deaths due to b

68 As a result, AZI antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) cannot be interpreted using

69 Traditional antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) confirmed a high correlatio

70 Rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (

71 inical justification for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) in Gram-negative rod (GNR)

72 Fast, accurate antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) is a critical need in addre

73 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is a fundamental mission of

74 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is an essential diagnostic

75 Rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) is critical in determining

76 on (ID) and rapid yet reliable antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is developed.

77 The speed of conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is intrinsically limited by

78 A sufficiently fast and simple antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is urgently required to gui

79 nes (among other products) for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) methods and results interpr

80 y, interpretative criteria and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) methods specific to the CoN

81 At present, in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of aztreonam-avibactam is n

82 s, rapid, automated, and reliable antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) of bacterial pathogens is e

83 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of cefiderocol poses challe

84 Identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of respiratory pathogens ar

85 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of these isolates is compli

86 ation using open-source tools and antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) prediction using ARESdb com

87 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) provides valuable informati

88 re being developed, gold-standard antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) remains unacceptably slow (

89 pecies identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results for the most common

90 ovides identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results within 8h of blood

91 Based on these data, the CLSI antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) subcommittee endorsed the C

92 ncluding three (semi)automated antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) systems and five selective

93 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) systems are the collective

94 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) technologies help to accele

95 mpted the development of rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) technologies that will enab

96 ella pneumoniae demands faster antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) to guide antibiotic treatme

97 Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) would decrease misuse and o

98 e pathogens for which accurate antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) would rule out standard tre

99 athogen identification (ID) or antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), resulting in delayed thera

100 terial analysis for phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), with promising results.

101 s bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST).

102 ility to perform culture-based antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST).

103 eed to develop simple and fast antimicrobial susceptibility tests (ASTs) that allow informed prescrib

104 ts help pave the way for rapid antibacterial susceptibility testing at the point-of-need, which is cu

105 e analysis of bacteria, including antibiotic susceptibility testing at the single-cell level.

106 ed by the CLSI Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing at their June 2015 meeting and we

107 luidic device that can perform antimicrobial susceptibility testing automatically via a broth dilutio

108 te revised the fluoroquinolone antimicrobial susceptibility testing breakpoints for both Enterobacter

109 CLSI or European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing breakpoints.

110 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing, broth enriched culture, and DNA

111 useful for many applications, including drug susceptibility testing, but current technologies have li

112 h microdilution is recommended for polymyxin susceptibility testing, but this method is impractical f

113 sistance rely on surveillance using standard susceptibility tests, but there are large gaps in the mo

114 Isolates (n = 112) were susceptibility tested by broth microdilution and disk di

115 applicability of this approach for colistin susceptibility testing by assessing a large and diverse

116 A. baumannii identification and minocycline susceptibility testing by AXDX using 101 contemporary Ac

117 Inaccurate drug susceptibility testing by comparison with a reference st

118 icate that fosA influences the inaccuracy of susceptibility testing by methods readily available in a

119 y 2016 underwent routine Etest antimicrobial susceptibility testing by the Hawaii Department of Healt

120 and guided by genotypic and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing can improve treatment outcomes.

121 No phenotypic susceptibility test correlated well with PCR results acr

122 mined by the dielectrophoretic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (dAST) and by the conventional br

123 g results for MS, genomic, and antimicrobial susceptibility test data to hierarchical clustering resu

124 ications for interpretation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing data and may be important for oth

125 Notably, antimicrobial susceptibility testing demonstrated good overall agreeme

126 technical representatives from antimicrobial susceptibility testing device manufacturers.

127 cordance or discordance of results from drug susceptibility testing done locally and in a reference l

128 Mycobacterium tuberculosis However, no drug susceptibility test (DST) is considered sufficiently rel

129 treated with regimens tailored to their drug susceptibility test (DST) result or to the DST result of

130 drug regimen while awaiting second-line drug-susceptibility test (DST) results.

131 reference standard that used phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST) and targeted sequencing.

132 entration (MIC) testing, unlike routine drug susceptibility testing (DST) at a single critical concen

133 ms of action, resistance emergence, and drug susceptibility testing (DST) for delamanid.

134 Noted issues with PZA Drug Susceptibility Testing (DST) have driven the search for

135 Universal drug susceptibility testing (DST) is an important requirement

136 treatments, validated and standardized drug susceptibility testing (DST) is required to improve pati

137 ive alternative to existing methods for drug susceptibility testing (DST) of Mycobacterium tuberculos

138 nately, classic growth-based phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST) remains difficult, costly,

139 men among US MDR-TB cases that had full drug susceptibility testing (DST) results and were reported d

140 hich is currently needed for phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST) results.

141 quires evidence-based, context-specific drug-susceptibility testing (DST) strategies.

142 g (WGS) has the potential to accelerate drug-susceptibility testing (DST) to design appropriate regim

143 However, the most appropriate use of drug susceptibility testing (DST) to support this regimen is

144 PZA drug susceptibility testing (DST) was performed directly on s

145 -based, context-specific strategies for drug-susceptibility testing (DST) will be required.

146 s level, concordance with culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST), and turnaround time.

147 or mycobacterial culture and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST), BD MAX and Xpert MTB/RIF (

148 en processed for culture and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST), BD MAX, and Xpert MTB/RIF

149 of the erm(41), rrl, and rrs genes and drug susceptibility testing (DST).

150 nosis (sensitivity, 65.4%) and reliable drug susceptibility testing (DST).

151 uide the development of molecular-based drug susceptibility testing (DST).

152 clinical laboratories are unable to perform susceptibility testing due to the lack of accurate and r

153 icle, the CLSI Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing established new breakpoints for d

154 Drug susceptibility testing established that ald loss of func

155 ing, the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and the Clinical and Lab

156 LSI) and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) are 2 global organizatio

157 FDA and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints and investig

158 ed using European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints, Etest MEV p

159 -FDA and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) interpretive breakpoints

160 and the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) S. pseudintermedius cefo

161 and the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST), respectively.

162 DA), and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST).

163 Our flow cytometry-assisted susceptibility test (FAST) method combines rapid qualita

164 were identified by MALDI-TOF, antimicrobial susceptibility testing followed EUCAST guidelines.

165 e of flight mass spectrometry, antimicrobial susceptibility testing followed European Committee on An

166 loped and evaluated as a rapid antimicrobial susceptibility test for B. anthracis This method is base

167 if it is possible to develop a point-of-care susceptibility test for urinary tract infection, a disea

168 Despite the WHO's call for universal drug susceptibility testing for all patients being evaluated

169 cal and public health laboratories implement susceptibility testing for aztreonam-avibactam.

170 to whole genome sequencing and standard drug susceptibility testing for eleven anti-TB drugs.

171 t bacteria, there is often a need to perform susceptibility testing for less commonly used or newer a

172 However, establishing accurate fosfomycin susceptibility testing for non-Escherichia coli isolates

173 est MEV is accurate and reproducible for MEV susceptibility testing for P. aeruginosa and Enterobacte

174 easy method for fluconazole and voriconazole susceptibility testing for timely tailoring of candidemi

175 c therapy necessitates local availability of susceptibility tests for individuals, and establishment

176 Here, we demonstrate that antibiotic susceptibility tests for several pathogens can rapidly b

177 The total time for antibiotic susceptibility testing, from loading of sample to diagno

178 followed European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing guidelines.

179 renewable surface for a rapid antibacterial susceptibility test has been demonstrated.

180 Antifungal susceptibility testing has evolved from a research techn

181 cements in accelerated phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility testing have centered on the microscopic

182 rly useful for the cases in which antibiotic susceptibility tests have to be done with a limited numb

183 al detection, identification, and antibiotic susceptibility testing in a single step.

184 e provides a simple method for antimicrobial susceptibility testing in an automated format that could

185 alcium-enhanced methods for routine colistin susceptibility testing in clinical laboratories.

186 ed by the CLSI Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing in January 2015 and January 2016.

187 We investigated the value of susceptibility testing in predicting response in AIDS-as

188 ere not different than culture-based FQ drug susceptibility testing in predicting the hazard of death

189 ory systems through increased access to drug-susceptibility testing in Uganda.

190 method and device allow for rapid antibiotic susceptibility tests in about 2 h.

191 Susceptibility testing indicated that mmpT5 mutations ar

192 is a key antituberculosis drug, yet no rapid susceptibility test is commercially available.

193 cular diagnostics for tuberculosis (TB) drug-susceptibility testing is critical to inform treatment o

194 k for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, drug susceptibility testing is imperative to guide therapy.

195 ed clinical laboratory capacity for colistin susceptibility testing is needed to prevent the spread o

196 Current planktonic-based antimicrobial susceptibility testing lacks the ability to predict clin

197 the Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (M100).

198 ased resazurin-aided colorimetric antibiotic susceptibility test (marcAST).

199 t agar diffusion with calcium enhancement of susceptibility testing media has been shown to improve t

200 t is appreciated in standard bacteriological susceptibility testing media.

201 low the resolving capability of current drug susceptibility testing methodologies, and may explain an

202 nce mechanisms in C. difficile and addresses susceptibility test methods and other strategies to coun

203 n the selection of appropriate antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods and interpretation.

204 Diffusion-based antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods are not recommended, and

205 to treat multidrug-resistant pathogens, and susceptibility testing methods for these drugs are incre

206 ermediate or resistant occur frequently with susceptibility testing methods that are feasible in clin

207 This study compared susceptibility testing methods that are used in clinical

208 tial agreement rate of 91.3% between the two susceptibility testing methods.

209 on and Etest and the results of standardized susceptibility testing methods; direct testing would all

210 Paired rapid identification and susceptibility testing might be useful when MALDI-TOF MS

211 Rapid molecular drug susceptibility test of first-line and second-line drugs

212 )-recommended method of broth microdilution, susceptibility testing of 170 isolates of rapidly growin

213 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 66 isolates revealed that only

214 nce MIC quality control (QC) ranges for drug susceptibility testing of antimycobacterials, including

215 For minocycline susceptibility testing of carbapenem-resistant A. bauman

216 n accurate tool for performing antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Enterobacterales, P. aeruginos

217 terned paper-based devices for detection and susceptibility testing of Escherichia coli, via a simple

218 In vitro susceptibility testing of F901318 against more than 100

219 The antifungal susceptibility testing of FLC and penicillin revealed th

220 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of isolates from 4793 domestic an

221 Antifungal Susceptibility Tests approved the susceptibility testing of ME1111 against dermatophytes a

222 c systems for screening, identification, and susceptibility testing of mecC-positive MRSA isolates.

223 s of MALDI-TOF MS for the identification and susceptibility testing of positive blood cultures, the p

224 In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the conjugate against common o

225 Susceptibility testing of the polymyxins (colistin and p

226 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the samples identified by MALD

227 ia at this time, and, as such, antimicrobial susceptibility testing of these organisms should be limi

228 This QC range will be used for in vitro susceptibility testing of zoliflodacin during phase 3 hu

229 ming culture, definitive identification, and susceptibility testing often results in prolonged use of

230 peline by performing a phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility test on 17 archived clinical urine sample

231 ification and broth microdilution phenotypic susceptibility testing on clinical isolates from a multi

232 Despite the clinical need for fast susceptibility testing over a wide range of antibiotics,

233 Culture, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, P1 subtyping, and multilocus VNT

234 Although rarely performed, phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (pDST) is used to define PZA resi

235 Poor reliability in susceptibility testing performance for piperacillin/tazo

236 for Microbiology (ASM) and their antibiotic susceptibility test, performed by Kirby-Bauer disc diffu

237 , we present a capillary-based antimicrobial susceptibility testing platform (cAST), a unique approac

238 automated, at-will broth microdilution-based susceptibility testing platform.

239 Used alone, without initial susceptibility tests, Rapidec Carba NP can provide posit

240 pe to anti-TB drugs were obtained using drug susceptibility testing recommended by the World Health O

241 s, or Burkholderia pseudomallei Conventional susceptibility tests require 16 to 48 h of incubation, d

242 mortality during treatment according to drug susceptibility test results and treatment adequacy in mu

243 INTRODUCTIONAntibiotic susceptibility test results are among the most important

244 ssay were 100% concordant with agar dilution susceptibility test results for 100 clinical isolates.

245 Antimicrobial susceptibility test results for trimethoprim-sulfadiazin

246 Availability of PCR-based clarithromycin susceptibility test results from pre-treatment gastric b

247 that cAST can deliver accurate antimicrobial susceptibility test results within 4-8 h.

248 ession models, compared with concordant drug susceptibility test results, the adjusted odds ratio of

249 g, including interpretation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing results using current breakpoints

250 ssay for M. tuberculosis and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing results when available.

251 Susceptibility testing should be performed to guide ther

252 Antibacterial susceptibility testing shows minimum inhibitory concentr

253 Its compatibility with standard antibiotic susceptibility tests, simplicity, and low cost can make

254 haracterized selected variants by antibiotic susceptibility testing, single turnover kinetics, and RN

255 al identification and automated-system-based susceptibility testing straight from the light scatter s

256 approved by CLSI for use in future in vitro susceptibility testing studies against organisms other t

257 ory Standards Institute (CLSI) Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee evaluated two method

258 n for changes in motility, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing suggested that the Campylobacter

259 apid phenotypic bacterial identification and susceptibility testing system which is approved for use

260 Compared to phenotypic culture-based drug susceptibility testing, the absence of wild-type probe h

261 zations that set standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, the European Committee on Antimi

262 Compared to the results of phenotypic susceptibility testing, the sensitivity of the assay was

263 yeasts from surveillance samples, antifungal susceptibility testing to determine the C. auris resista

264 e-conferring mutations in the pncA gene, and susceptibility testing to fluoroquinolones was conducted

265 Among 5015 patients who underwent susceptibility testing to fluoroquinolones, proportions

266 d to transition from culture and traditional susceptibility testing to molecular methods for detectio

267 tion methods, from traditional antimicrobial susceptibility testing to recent deep-learning methods.

268 ution and the importance of rapid antibiotic susceptibility tests to battle this pathogen.

269 inical isolates and difficulty in performing susceptibility tests to determine minimum inhibitory con

270 understanding of bacteria, developing better susceptibility testing tools, and overcoming obstacles i

271 microdilution (BMD) for imipenem-relebactam susceptibility testing using a collection of 297 Gram-ne

272 method for rapid and scalable antimicrobial susceptibility testing using stationary nanoliter drople

273 Based on standard in vitro susceptibility testing, vancomycin remains an optimal an

274 l microbiological methods, and antimicrobial susceptibility test was done by disc diffusion.

275 Drug susceptibility test was done using the Kirby-Bauer Disk

276 Antimicrobial susceptibility test was performed according to the Clini

277 istance targets, concordance with phenotypic susceptibility testing was 79% (14/18).

278 Cefixime susceptibility testing was done in selected isolates by

279 Molecular or phenotypic drug susceptibility testing was done locally and at the Swiss

280 Antifungal susceptibility testing was in agreement with past studie

281 Antifungal susceptibility testing was performed according to CLSI d

282 Antifungal susceptibility testing was performed as outlined by Clin

283 Drug susceptibility testing was performed by microscopic obse

284 Susceptibility testing was performed for each culture-po

285 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed on Bcc and B. gladi

286 Antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed on isolates from 20

287 Molecular drug susceptibility testing was performed on skin biopsies fr

288 Susceptibility testing was performed using a glucose-6-p

289 subset of 384 isolates with phenotypic drug susceptibility testing, we also observed high sensitivit

290 Culture-positive samples with susceptibility testing were included in this analysis.

291 ep identification methods; and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were performed on the human isola

292 le genome sequencing (WGS) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were performed to examine the rel

293 Parallel or reflexive culture and susceptibility testing were performed when PCR detected

294 sed identification methods and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were used as the reference standa

295 Antimicrobial susceptibility tests were done by the disc diffusion met

296 se of whole-genome sequencing for antibiotic susceptibility testing (WGS-AST) is now a powerful alter

297 the clinical laboratory depends on standard susceptibility testing, which takes at least 24 h to com

298 nhance the quantitative nature of antibiotic susceptibility testing while significantly reducing the

299 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing, whole-genome sequencing, and bio

300 was capable of executing rapid antimicrobial susceptibility tests with one, two, or even three antibi