ライフサイエンスコーパス: susceptibility testing

1 ultilocus sequence typing, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

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

3 ed bacterial identification or antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

4 e organism identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

5 g provides an avenue for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

6 015 were reviewed for incidence and standard susceptibility testing.

7 osfomycin disk is occasionally observed upon susceptibility testing.

8 be accelerated along with comprehensive drug susceptibility testing.

9 olate, less time than traditional phenotypic susceptibility testing.

10 chemistry, enzyme kinetics and antibacterial susceptibility testing.

11 he interlaboratory reproducibility of ME1111 susceptibility testing.

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

13 4%), because 35 samples had no growth during susceptibility testing.

14 ning appropriate antibiotic therapy prior to susceptibility testing.

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

16 nded virulence genotyping, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

17 an added value for LC-MS/MS in antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

18 lected on the basis of treatment history and susceptibility testing.

19 nown as next-generation sequencing-to cancer susceptibility testing.

20 onae, do not require extended clarithromycin susceptibility testing.

21 berculosis pncA gene allows for pyrazinamide susceptibility testing.

22 baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa during susceptibility testing.

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

24 nd CG258 isolates selected for bacteriophage susceptibility testing.

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

26 read sequencing and additional antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

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

28 odilution (BMD) for performing antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

29 laboratories are unable to perform colistin susceptibility testing.

30 ed by the CLSI Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing.

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

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

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

38 product information; and uncertainties about susceptibility testing and breakpoints.

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 Isolates were serotyped; susceptibility testing and multilocus sequence typing on

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

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

44 isms in staphylococci, current antimicrobial susceptibility testing and reporting recommendations for

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

46 and non-MR bacteria determined by antibiotic susceptibility testing and the biosensor assay when the

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

48 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing and whole genome sequencing were

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

50 Isolates underwent antibiotic susceptibility testing and whole-genome sequencing.

51 lating molecular data with results from drug susceptibility testing and, optimally, associated patien

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

60 2015, the CLSI Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing approved these ranges, which will

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

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

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

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 s (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), and how these concepts rel

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

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

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

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

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

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

115 Inaccurate drug susceptibility testing by comparison with a reference st

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

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

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

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

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

121 Notably, antimicrobial susceptibility testing demonstrated good overall agreeme

122 technical representatives from antimicrobial susceptibility testing device manufacturers.

123 e cultured, owing to higher-sensitivity drug susceptibility testing, differential diagnosis, and surv

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

125 is (MDR-TB) in comparison with standard drug susceptibility testing (DST) and compared the results in

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

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

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

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

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

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

132 his study was to establish standardized drug susceptibility testing (DST) methodologies and reference

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

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

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

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

137 benefit for regimens based directly on drug susceptibility testing (DST) results.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

148 lowed by confirmatory test (TT), and 4) drug-susceptibility testing (DST).

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

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

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

152 Drug susceptibility testing established that ald loss of func

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

164 characterisations to predict phenotypic drug-susceptibility testing for an independent validation set

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

166 Susceptibility testing for colistin should be considered

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

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

169 Improved diagnostics and drug susceptibility testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis ar

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

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

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

173 llowing a laboratory change in antimicrobial susceptibility testing from disk diffusion to an automat

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

175 followed European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing guidelines.

176 Antifungal susceptibility testing has evolved from a research techn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

185 Susceptibility testing indicated that mmpT5 mutations ar

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

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

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

189 Phenotypic drug-susceptibility testing is slow and expensive, and commer

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

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

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

193 t is appreciated in standard bacteriological susceptibility testing media.

194 s Institute (CLSI) revised the antimicrobial susceptibility testing method for telavancin, resulting

195 Standardization of the susceptibility testing method for this candidate antifun

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

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

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

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

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

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

202 o AMK and KAN in all three conventional drug susceptibility testing methods.

203 sitive and specific as routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods.

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

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

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

207 Bacterial isolates were characterized by susceptibility testing, multilocus sequence typing, Dive

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

209 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 66 isolates revealed that only

210 In vitro susceptibility testing of 92 isolates against nine antif

211 isolates to species level, and the need for susceptibility testing of all Aspergillus spp, if treatm

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

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

214 ics of this species, we performed antifungal susceptibility testing of clinical and type strains.

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

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

217 In vitro susceptibility testing of F901318 against more than 100

218 The antifungal susceptibility testing of FLC and penicillin revealed th

219 NS5B sequencing and susceptibility testing of HCV from subjects infected wit

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 he lack of interpretive criteria, antifungal susceptibility testing of molds may be useful in guiding

224 ppropriate alternative to BMD for antifungal susceptibility testing of molds under specific circumsta

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

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

227 Susceptibility testing of the polymyxins (colistin and p

228 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the samples identified by MALD

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

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

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

232 e performed whole genome sequencing and drug susceptibility testing on 337 clinical isolates of Mycob

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

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

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

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

237 Poor reliability in susceptibility testing performance for piperacillin/tazo

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

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

240 Susceptibility testing, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis

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

242 The delayed reporting of antimicrobial susceptibility testing remains a limiting factor in clin

243 ation, culture thresholds, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing, require special consideration in

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

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

246 In light of the antifungal susceptibility testing results, we caution against the u

247 ed gyrA mutations consistent with phenotypic susceptibility testing results.

248 Susceptibility testing should be performed to guide ther

249 Antibacterial susceptibility testing shows minimum inhibitory concentr

250 ug should be first line therapy, unless drug susceptibility testing shows resistance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

257 testing from disk diffusion to an automated susceptibility testing system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

266 nel (SensiQuattro Candida EU) for antifungal susceptibility testing to that of Liofilchem's MIC test

267 tional erm genes undergo only 3 to 5 days of susceptibility testing (to exclude mutational resistance

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

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

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

271 In vitro susceptibility testing using tetracycline HCL as a surro

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

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

274 Cefixime susceptibility testing was done in selected isolates by

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

276 Antifungal susceptibility testing was in agreement with past studie

277 Antifungal susceptibility testing was performed according to CLSI d

278 Antifungal susceptibility testing was performed as outlined by Clin

279 Drug susceptibility testing was performed by microscopic obse

280 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by standard methods

281 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed following the Clini

282 Susceptibility testing was performed for each culture-po

283 In this study, isolates were recultured and susceptibility testing was performed in Bactec 960 MGIT.

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

285 Antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed on isolates from 20

286 Molecular drug susceptibility testing was performed on skin biopsies fr

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

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

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

290 al speciation, serotyping, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were performed at MLW.

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

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

297 ostic workflows, phasing out phenotypic drug-susceptibility testing while reporting drug resistance e

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

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

300 ce Center at Tyler) underwent clarithromycin susceptibility testing with readings at 3 to 5 days and