ライフサイエンスコーパス: Etest

1 microdilution, CLSI broth microdilution, and Etest).

2 d by broth microdilution, agar dilution, and Etest.

3 sk diffusion and 4 (13.3%) minor errors with Etest.

4 tested for mupirocin susceptibility by using Etest.

5 enerated by this method to MICs generated by Etest.

6 eillance were concurrently tested by BMD and Etest.

7 tion; mupirocin susceptibility was tested by Etest.

8 em, meropenem, and cefepime by utilizing the Etest.

9 es were also classified as nonsusceptible by Etest.

10 tories performed susceptibility testing with Etest.

11 ibility by the disk-diffusion method and the Etest.

12 by broth macrodilution, disk diffusion, and Etest.

13 trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole testing by the Etest.

14 cessful transition from agar dilution to the Etest.

15 UC/MIC by broth microdilution and AUC/MIC by Etest.

16 = 0.25/0.5 mug/ml by broth microdilution and Etest.

17 and, in particular, to use caution with the Etest.

18 monly used antibiotics by disk diffusion and Etest.

19 isolates were interpreted as susceptible by Etest.

20 , five had susceptible MICs as determined by Etest.

21 (BMD-T), broth macrodilution (TDS), and the Etest.

22 etermined using the K-B diffusion method and eTest.

23 ty testing for levofloxacin was performed by Etest.

24 of the all-test median MIC for 97.5% of the Etests.

25 ion (0.902, standard error [SE] = 0.076) and Etest (1.00, SE = 0.218) and for amphotericin B by disk

26 quent false-NS results (30 for BMD30, 18 for Etest, 22 for MicroScan Prompt, and 25 for MicroScan tur

27 nce broth microdilution, gradient diffusion (Etest), 23S rRNA gene sequencing, and cfr PCR.

28 ylococci were the highest for VITEK (35.7%), Etest (40.0%), and disk diffusion (53.3%), although the

29 reference and test methods was observed for Etest (95%) and Sensititre (91%).

30 meropenem by agar dilution, disk diffusion, Etest (AB BIODISK North America, Inc., Piscataway, N.J.)

31 Several Etest (AB BIODISK, Solna, Sweden) gradient formats were

32 In this study, we found that the dalbavancin Etest (AB BIODISK, Solna, Sweden) procedure demonstrated

33 amined the correlation of disk diffusion and Etest (AB BIODISK, Solna, Sweden) results with a referen

34 The Etest (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden) was observed to produc

35 all 100 isolates were tested in parallel by Etest (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden), MicroScan WalkAway (D

36 ycin and teicoplanin was determined using an Etest (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden).

37 ostics, Sparks, MD), oxacillin and cefoxitin Etests (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden) on Mueller-Hinton aga

38 s results from three validated methods (BMD, Etest [AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden], and disk diffusion).

39 tempted to apply the stable-gradient method (Etest; AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden) to susceptibility test

40 agar dilution method and, separately, by the Etest according to the manufacturer's recommendations.

41 ween broth microdilution (BMD), Vitek 2, and Etest against 48 clinical KPC-producing Klebsiella pneum

42 otic Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and the Etest agar diffusion method were compared with the Clini

43 thod were compared to those generated by the Etest agar gradient diffusion method.

44 In turn, Etest also has false nonsusceptible results compared to

45 rds reference broth microdilution method and Etest (amphotericin B).

46 tes were significantly lower than those from Etest analysis at the time of isolation for both antibio

47 MICs from automated testing and Etest analysis of stored isolates were significantly low

48 erall categorical agreement (CA) was 90% for Etest and 88% for Sensititre; minor errors accounted for

49 The Etest and agar dilution methods were well correlated.

50 Overall agreements for Etest and agar dilution MIC values compared to reference

51 Overall agreement between Etest and BMD MICs was 96% for fluconazole and 95% for v

52 MIC comparisons between the Etest and BMD resulted in lower concordance for erythrom

53 The MICs were determined by Etest and BMD using two different manufacturers (BBL and

54 cy was noted between the results obtained by Etest and broth microdilution for voriconazole, the Etes

55 eement (within 2 well dilutions) between the Etest and broth microdilution methods was 94%.

56 system (Vitek 2) and retrospective testing (Etest and CLSI reference broth microdilution [BMD] metho

57 .2% (micafungin), whereas the EA between the Etest and CLSI results ranged from 90.2% (caspofungin) t

58 The CA between the Etest and CLSI results was also excellent for all compar

59 is study was to determine the ability of the Etest and DD methods to differentiate daptomycin-suscept

60 By Etest and disc diffusion assay, pradofloxacin showed gre

61 The agar-based Etest and disk diffusion methods performed well for the

62 We compared Etest and disk diffusion to broth microdilution for the

63 Overall, the agreement between Etest and disk diffusion was better than the agreement b

64 twofold dilution, for 97% of the isolates by Etest and for 100% by JustOne.

65 evices for determination of daptomycin MICs, Etest and JustOne.

66 Overall agreement between Etest and microdilution MICs was 96% with RPMI agar and

67 Overall agreement percentages between the Etest and microdilution MICs were 97.6% for voriconazole

68 Overall, Etest and Sensititre methods compared favorably with the

69 lity testing in our clinical laboratory, the Etest and Sensititre methods were compared with the Clin

70 ere determined after 48 h of incubation, and Etest and Sensititre MICs were determined after 24 h and

71 Etest and Sensititre provided better CA at 24 h compared

72 Overall agreements between the Etest and the BMD MICs obtained with RPG and MBE agars w

73 The performances of the Etest and the disk diffusion methods for testing of the

74 Where a discrepancy was observed between Etest and the reference method, the Etest MIC was genera

75 where a discrepancy was observed between the Etest and the reference method, the Etest MIC was lower.

76 Where a discrepancy was observed between Etest and the reference method, the Etest tended to give

77 Where a discrepancy was observed between Etest and the reference method, the Etest tended to give

78 blood culture bottles by disk diffusion and Etest and the results of standardized susceptibility tes

79 Vancomycin MICs were determined using Etest and two broth microdilution assays, MicroScan and

80 mpared posaconazole M27-A2 and M38-A MICs to Etest and YeastOne MICs for 92 zygomycetes, 126 Aspergil

81 We compared the V-MIC (Etest) and the frequency of hVISA (Etest macromethod) fo

82 lts from clinical microbiology laboratories (Etest) and to polymyxin resistance testing.

83 medium supplementation (BMD30 method), (iii) Etest, and (iv and v) MicroScan panel 33 using 2 methods

84 commercial and in-house broth microdilution, Etest, and common automated methods.

85 R) were tested by broth microdilution (BMD), Etest, and disk diffusion (DD), and the modified Hodge t

86 sceptibility testing methods, the MicroScan, Etest, and Kirby-Bauer methods, for 61 consecutive isola

87 rmatory testing employing disk augmentation, Etest, and the BD Phoenix NMC/ID-132 panel.

88 nce method) for MicroScan, Phoenix, VITEK 2, Etest, and VITEK were 99.0%, 95.8%, 92.0%, 92.0%, and 85

89 l 2016 through 10 May 2016 underwent routine Etest antimicrobial susceptibility testing by the Hawaii

90 rodilution method, validating the use of the Etest as an alternative test for investigational or clin

91 amicin, and tobramycin using disk diffusion, Etest, as well as the Phoenix, Vitek 2, and MicroScan au

92 sing the commercially available YeastOne and Etest assays and 102 isolates.

93 polystyrene trays and both the YeastOne and Etest assays.

94 or untreated trays and with the YeastOne and Etest assays.

95 methods (agar dilution, broth microdilution, Etest at 0.5 and 2.0 McFarland (McF) inocula, two agar s

96 sted for vancomycin susceptibility using the Etest between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2008.

97 the MicroScan MICroSTREP plus (Siemens), and Etest (bioMerieux) for antibiotic susceptibility tests (

98 terobacteriaceae isolates were determined by Etest, BMD, Vitek-2, and MicroScan.

99 In conclusion, we found that the Etest can be effectively used as an alternative to agar

100 We studied whether the Etest can be used as an alternative to agar dilution to

101 nfections and also provide evidence that the Etest can be utilized to guide chemotherapy with alterna

102 The Etest compared favorably with agar dilution in a subsidi

103 ported to be elevated when determined by the Etest compared to determinations by the broth microdilut

104 s significantly more common as determined by Etest compared to that determined by BMD (odds ratio [OR

105 , since MICs are significantly elevated with Etest compared to those determined by the three other me

106 o evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Etest compared with the reference agar dilution method f

107 The Etest correlation with reference broth microdilution res

108 Etest demonstrated 82.6% agreement with broth microdilut

109 This paper presents Etest determinations of MICs of selected antimicrobial a

110 We performed Etest, disk diffusion, and broth microdilution susceptib

111 We performed Etest, disk diffusion, and broth microdilution susceptib

112 used in clinical microbiology laboratories (Etest, disk diffusion, and Sensititre broth microdilutio

113 ade Behring, Inc., West Sacramento, Calif.), Etest ESBL (AB BIODISK, Piscataway, N.J.), Vitek GNS-120

114 ne "sensitive" interpretive criteria for the Etest ESBL screen.

115 irmation panel and VITEK 1 GNS-120, 98%; and Etest ESBL, 94%.

116 firmation panel, 100%; VITEK 1 GNS-120, 99%; Etest ESBL, 97%; and BD BBL Sensi-Disk ESBL Confirmatory

117 MICs were determined by Etest for all 162 isolates with RPMI 1640 agar containin

118 MICs were determined by Etest for all 314 isolates with RPMI agar containing 2%

119 MICs were determined by Etest for all 726 isolates with RPMI agar containing 2%

120 The utility of Etest for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Yersin

121 der the supplemental use of reference BMD or Etest for cefepime and meropenem for susceptibility test

122 The performance of the Etest for fluconazole susceptibility testing of 402 yeas

123 The positive predictive value of GRD Etest for hVISA was 16.2% for initial screen positive an

124 The performance of the Etest for itraconazole susceptibility testing of 50 isol

125 nts (CA) of Phoenix, Vitek 2, MicroScan, and Etest for penicillin were 95.5%, 94.2%, 98.7%, and 97.7%

126 The performance of the Etest for posaconazole (SCH 56592) susceptibility testin

127 - and intralaboratory reproducibility of the Etest for susceptibility testing of the rapidly growing

128 regarding the suitability of the tigecycline Etest for testing S. marcescens, Acinetobacter spp., and

129 The performance of the Etest for testing the susceptibilities to caspofungin (M

130 The performance of the Etest for voriconazole and amphotericin B susceptibility

131 The performance of the Etest for voriconazole and for itraconazole susceptibili

132 Performance of the Etest for voriconazole susceptibility testing of 312 iso

133 c susceptibility testing reagents (including Etest) for fusidic acid (CEM-102) performed at an excell

134 sessing concomitant ESBL and pAmpC genes for Etest (four of five), BD Phoenix (three of five), and di

135 nd broth microdilution for voriconazole, the Etest generally provided a higher MIC.

136 Recently, Etest glycopeptide resistance detection (GRD) strips hav

137 HI) agar, and a 2.0 McFarland inoculum; (ii) Etest glycopeptide resistance detection (GRD) using vanc

138 Institute broth microdilution method and the Etest GRD (glycopeptide resistance detection) method (bi

139 e hVISA incidence was 1.2%, as determined by Etest GRD and PAP-AUC.

140 es and determined the prevalence of hVISA by Etest GRD and population analysis profile-area under the

141 Etest GRD identified six hVISA isolates, two of which we

142 The Etest GRD screen for hVISA was initially positive for 68

143 romethod was 57% sensitive and 96% specific, Etest GRD was 57% sensitive and 97% specific, and BHI sc

144 Etest GRD was performed on all isolates, and those exhib

145 Isolates with Etest GRD-positive results for hVISA were evaluated furt

146 , while 96% of these same isolates tested by Etest had MICs of > or = 1 microg/ml.

147 synergy test, and the metallo-beta-lactamase Etest, had specificities of >90% for detecting carbapene

148 Etest hVISA screenings were done in parallel for 485 sav

149 t strains, whereas the EUCAST method and the Etest identified 6 of 7 mutant strains.

150 The Etest identified all 7 mutant strains using caspofungin

151 MICs were determined by Etest in both media for all 4,936 isolates and were read

152 The performance of Etest in fluconazole and voriconazole testing of 279 iso

153 cin MIC results obtained by Microscan and by Etest in Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci and found

154 In summary, the Etest in this evaluation did not perform as well as brot

155 range of clinical MICs, reexamination of the Etest interpretation of susceptible and nonsusceptible c

156 The best Etest interpretative criteria for the 2.0 McF inoculum w

157 Etest IP plus IP-EDTA with Mueller-Hinton agar had a sen

158 The methods included (i) Etest macromethod using vancomycin and teicoplanin test

159 The Etest macromethod was 57% sensitive and 96% specific, Et

160 he V-MIC (Etest) and the frequency of hVISA (Etest macromethod) for all MRSA blood isolates saved ove

161 mycin-intermediate S. aureus [hVISA]) by the Etest macromethod.

162 eous resistance to vancomycin (hVISA) by the Etest macromethod.

163 The Etest MBL strip appears to be an acceptable diagnostic r

164 The Etest metallo-beta-lactamase (Etest MBL) strips consisted of a double-sided seven-dilu

165 ystem [EARSS]), and the macrodilution method Etest (MET) (EARSS), with population analysis profile-ar

166 The Etest metallo-beta-lactamase (Etest MBL) strips consiste

167 he differences in the penicillin MICs by the Etest method and the difficulties of reading the Etest r

168 isolates without the need for MHT, while the Etest method characterized many KPC-Kp isolates as susce

169 microdilution testing and the results of the Etest method for any of the antimicrobial agents tested;

170 We concluded that the Etest method is an appropriate alternative to BMD for an

171 The Etest method produced MICs similar to those of the agar

172 l methods were easy to perform; however, the Etest method required more expertise to interpret the re

173 uiring further education on how to interpret Etest method results for this compound.

174 es is required to confirm the ability of the Etest method to detect voriconazole and posaconazole res

175 The Etest method using either RPG or CAS, but not MHA, appea

176 The Etest method using MH-GMB appears to be a useful method

177 The Etest method using RPG agar appears to be a useful metho

178 The Etest method using RPG agar appears to be a useful metho

179 The Etest method using RPG appears to be a useful method for

180 The Etest method using RPG appears to be useful for determin

181 The Etest method using RPMI agar appears to be a useful meth

182 The Etest method using RPMI agar appears to be a useful meth

183 The Etest method using RPMI agar appears to be a useful meth

184 erlaboratory evaluation (two centers) of the Etest method was conducted for testing the antifungal su

185 The Macro Etest method was used to screen all available isolates.

186 id, susceptibility rates determined with the Etest method were 67.3% and 52.3% for minocycline, 21.5%

187 a commercialized gradient diffusion method (Etest method) as an alternative to BMD.

188 r ( approximately 5.6%), especially with the Etest method.

189 ISA-positive strains determined by the Macro Etest method.

190 ibiotic susceptibility was determined by the Etest method.

191 ds, and select isolates were examined by the Etest method.

192 omycin and clindamycin susceptibilities with Etest methodology among 546 group A streptococcal isolat

193 erall, the results produced by the Pasco and Etest methods were found to be acceptable for all drugs

194 rors were similar for the disk diffusion and Etest methods with 0.4 and 0.1%, respectively, very majo

195 the discrepancies by the disk diffusion and Etest methods with fluconazole were minor errors.

196 nd Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and Etest methods.

197 6 non-Aspergillus isolates) with the BMD and Etest methods.

198 Etest MIC and/or disk diffusion testing on commercial Re

199 Reference CLSI MIC versus Etest MIC results (r = 0.77; 728 strains) showed 55.4% i

200 In addition, we compared Etest MIC results and disk diffusion zone diameter measu

201 There was a good correlation between Etest MIC results and the results of BMD among laborator

202 Between 92 and 99% of Etest MIC results for all drugs were within +/- 1 log2 d

203 ns) between the CLSI and EUCAST and CLSI and Etest MIC results was observed.

204 Etest MIC values demonstrated 98% agreement within +/-2

205 lation was acceptable for Mucoromycotina but Etest MIC values were consistently lower for Aspergillus

206 between Etest and the reference method, the Etest MIC was generally higher.

207 In all cases, the Etest MIC was higher and would have caused reports of fa

208 ween the Etest and the reference method, the Etest MIC was lower.

209 EAs between the reference BMD and BMD30, Etest, MicroScan Prompt, and MicroScan turbidity were 63

210 tained with six commercial MIC test systems (Etest, MicroScan, Phoenix, Sensititre, Vitek Legacy, and

211 was lower between reference posaconazole and Etest MICs (94 to 97%) and by both methods with amphoter

212 Modal Etest MICs agreed with those by broth microdilution only

213 Overall, the agreement between caspofungin Etest MICs and broth dilution values was higher with MEC

214 The proportion of isolates with Etest MICs of < 1 and > or = 1 microg/ml between childre

215 Etest MICs of azithromycin and telithromycin were more t

216 hus, institutions should consider conducting Etest MICs on all MRSA BSI isolates.

217 lus spp., the agreement between itraconazole Etest MICs read at 24 h and reference microdilution MICs

218 annii, although for most evaluated pathogens Etest MICs trended one doubling-dilution higher than BMD

219 Etest MICs were also determined.

220 Etest MICs were determined with RPMI 1640 agar containin

221 Etest MICs were determined with RPMI agar containing 2%

222 Etest MICs were determined with RPMI agar containing 2%

223 Etest MICs were determined with RPMI agar containing 2%

224 Etest MICs were determined with RPMI agar containing 2%

225 Etest MICs were easily read within 5 to 10 days of inocu

226 Vancomycin Etest MICs were higher than those of other methods, wher

227 broth microdilution MICs on HTM; ampicillin Etest MICs were nearly twofold lower.

228 Etest MICs were obtained on solidified (1.5% agar) RPMI

229 The Etest MICs were significantly higher than those obtained

230 tories (r = 0.86 to 0.88), with 95.3% of the Etest MICs within a +/-1 log(2) dilution of the BMD MIC

231 Most of the Etest MICs, except for that of erythromycin, were on sca

232 performed in vitro susceptibility testing by Etest of four carbapenems for M. abscessus isolates.

233 orrelated with fluoroquinolone MICs based on Etests of these 15 MSSE isolates.

234 ar dilution tests, disk diffusion tests, and Etests, on six different agar media.

235 B. pertussis can be simplified by using the Etest or disk diffusion on RL-C to screen for erythromyc

236 In summary, daptomycin MICs generated by the Etest or JustOne method generally agreed within 1 diluti

237 solates with a vancomycin MIC of 2 mug/mL by Etest (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.34-2.21; P < .01).

238 ear 4 (2004 to 2005) was demonstrated by the Etest (P < 0.00007) but not by broth microdilution.

239 rim-sulfamethoxazole results were lower with Etest, particularly when the direct suspension method wa

240 Etest performed poorly, as the majority of interpretatio

241 mycin susceptibility were evaluated by using Etest performed prospectively on isolates in routine cli

242 ll categorical agreement levels for VITEK 2, Etest, Phoenix, disk diffusion, and VITEK were 93.0%, 90

243 entrations higher by all AST methods, except Etest, potentially impacting definitive antimicrobial th

244 th in vivo outcome of both microdilution and Etest procedures may detect more-relevant testing condit

245 The Etest produced MIC values 1 to 2 dilutions higher than t

246 methods were useful for tigecycline testing; Etest provided a conservative estimate of polymyxin B su

247 on method or with the commercially available Etest((R)) (Biomerieux, France) kit.

248 ation were similar to those calculated using Etest((R)).

249 Etest reading errors were apparent and skewed results to

250 Etest reported a significant increase (mode MIC = 1.5 mu

251 eight drugs (160 tests) in order to evaluate Etest reproducibility.

252 The Etest results correlated well with reference MICs.

253 The Etest results correlated well with reference MICs.

254 The Etest results for both voriconazole and amphotericin B c

255 ptomycin MIC (P = 0.03) by year of study for Etest results from the time of isolation.

256 The Etest results obtained using RPG correlated well with re

257 The Etest results obtained using RPG correlated well with th

258 and the within-2-log2 general agreement, the Etest results produced slightly lower MICs than the agar

259 t method and the difficulties of reading the Etest results through the glass of a biological safety c

260 The accuracy also was evaluated by comparing Etest results to those obtained by broth microdilution.

261 Etest results were easy to read, with sharp zones of inh

262 Etest results were somewhat easier to read on CAS.

263 The Etest results with MH-GMB correlated well with those wit

264 ntially giving inaccurate disk diffusion and Etest results.

265 We compared the performance of two Etest screening methods (macromethod [MAC] and glycopept

266 These findings suggest that both Etest screening methods have excellent NPV, but positive

267 Etest should probably not be used by laboratories for ti

268 Etest showed an >or=92% EA for MICs for all drugs tested

269 r 35 H. alvei and H. paralvei isolates using Etest strips for 24 antibiotics.

270 per isolate) using common lots of media and Etest strips.

271 Disk diffusion and Etest tended to be more accurate than the Vitek 2, Phoen

272 ance); the MicroScan and Phoenix systems and Etest tended to categorize susceptible strains as VISA;

273 between Etest and the reference method, the Etest tended to give lower values with both fluconazole

274 between Etest and the reference method, the Etest tended to give lower values with voriconazole and

275 ratories tested 26 diverse strains and found Etest to be reliable for testing antimicrobial agents us

276 acid disk test and the cefotetan-cloxacillin Etest to identify organisms with AmpC beta-lactamase pro

277 ng systems (MicroScan, Vitek 2, Phoenix, and Etest) to detect vancomycin MIC values of </=1 to >/=2 i

278 Etest using 0.5 and 2.0 McF inocula gave sensitivities a

279 ntaining 20% horse blood (reference method), Etest using BGA and Regan-Lowe agar without cephalexin (

280 a subset of 314 isolates were also tested by Etest using Casitone agar (CAS) and antibiotic medium 3

281 The performance of the Etest using Mueller-Hinton agar supplemented with glucos

282 of Candida spp. was assessed against that of Etest using RPMI agar with 2% glucose (RPG).

283 ognized by MicroScan conventional panels and Etest vancomycin strips.

284 ColR was underestimated by Etest (very major error rate = 35%, major error rate = 0

285 ls of agreement between broth microdilution, Etest, Vitek 2, Sensititre, and MicroScan methods to acc

286 The average precision for Etest was +/- 1.11-fold for vancomycin and +/- 1.16-fold

287 The Etest was also performed on these 50 isolates using Muel

288 Agreement in MICs obtained by Etest was determined for fluconazole (21 isolates), vori

289 roducibility data also demonstrated that the Etest was precise (99.1%) when subjected to replicate te

290 Etest was used to determine the MIC of moxifloxacin and

291 solates tested were inhibited, determined by Etest, was 32 microgram/ml versus >256 microgram/ml in 7

292 s, measured by broth microdilution (BMD) and Etest, was prospectively assessed for 10 methicillin-res

293 However, daptomycin MICs determined by Etest were 1 dilution lower than the reference MICs for

294 , the results for penicillin obtained by the Etest were 1 to 9 dilutions lower than those obtained by

295 MEs and 28 mEs), and those for MicroScan and Etest were 99.5% each (19 and 13 mEs, respectively).

296 (VMEs) (i.e., false susceptibility) for the Etest were found in 47 to 53% of the resistant isolates,

297 ments for the ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin Etests were 89.6 and 83.7%, respectively.

298 Using the Etest with a 2.0 McF inoculum, six different media were

299 Similar profiles were observed by Etest, with the exception of A. baumannii, although for

300 rom a distributed surveillance that utilized Etest yielded a tigecycline activity profile that varied