ライフサイエンスコーパス: broth microdilution

1 icrodilution) to 98.6% (agar dilution versus broth microdilution).

2 nd compared the results to those obtained by broth microdilution.

3 trated by the Etest (P < 0.00007) but not by broth microdilution.

4 t by broth macrodilution were susceptible by broth microdilution.

5 elegans clinical isolates were determined by broth microdilution.

6 bility testing was conducted using automated broth microdilution.

7 d for all Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates by broth microdilution.

8 were tested for antibiotic susceptibility by broth microdilution.

9 comparing Etest results to those obtained by broth microdilution.

10 boratory Standards by the disk method and by broth microdilution.

11 were 25 and 100%, respectively, compared to broth microdilution.

12 ical scavenging activity, disc-diffusion and broth microdilution.

13 Antimicrobial susceptibility was measured by broth microdilution.

14 results for 128 A. urinae isolates tested by broth microdilution.

15 evofloxacin susceptibility was determined by broth microdilution.

16 were tested for antimicrobial resistance by broth microdilution.

17 d tested for antibiotic susceptibility using broth microdilution.

18 sporin present in combination when tested by broth microdilution.

19 MICs were determined via broth microdilution.

20 Based on broth microdilution, 0%, 2.2%, and 97.8% of the KPC isol

21 sensitivity/% specificity) were as follows: broth microdilution, 100/100; Velogene, 100/100; Vitek,

22 lymyxin resistance determination compared to broth microdilution (16 to 20 h), our study indicates th

23 By broth microdilution, 43/44 invasive serotype 6C isolates

24 pectively, were as follows: oxacillin MIC by broth microdilution, 94.4% and 96.7%; oxacillin screen a

25 d MICs of oxacillin previously determined by broth microdilution according to CLSI guidelines.

26 MICs were determined using broth microdilution according to the CLSI reference meth

27 arious antibiotic classes were determined by broth microdilution according to the guidelines of the C

28 All isolates were MIC tested by broth microdilution against ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin,

29 of minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) by broth microdilution against Mycobacterium smegmatis as a

30 ulin, tilmicosin, and tylosin were tested by broth microdilution against various National Committee f

31 Broth microdilution, agar dilution, and disk diffusion t

32 consensus result of three reference methods: broth microdilution, agar dilution, and disk diffusion.

33 ical isolates to doripenem was determined by broth microdilution, agar dilution, and Etest.

34 ma hominis, and Ureaplasma urealyticum using broth microdilution and agar dilution techniques.

35 Excellent correlation was achieved between broth microdilution and agar dilution tests (r = 0.96 to

36 erived day 1 and 2 thresholds for AUC/MIC by broth microdilution and AUC/MIC by Etest.

37 er spp., including MDR strains, by reference broth microdilution and disk diffusion (15-mug disk cont

38 inia pestis was evaluated in comparison with broth microdilution and disk diffusion for eight agents.

39 nsitabs tablet assay to both reference M38-A broth microdilution and disk diffusion methods for testi

40 o MicroScan dried panels with CLSI reference broth microdilution and disk diffusion methods on a coll

41 ed for oxacillin susceptibility by the NCCLS broth microdilution and disk diffusion procedures in 11

42 ontrol (QC) study was performed to establish broth microdilution and disk diffusion QC ranges for str

43 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution and disk diffusion reference methods

44 results generated at the CDC with the NCCLS broth microdilution and disk diffusion reference methods

45 Broth microdilution and disk diffusion susceptibility te

46 Using data generated by standardized broth microdilution and disk diffusion test methods, the

47 Standards (NCCLS) oxacillin breakpoints for broth microdilution and disk diffusion testing of coagul

48 mittee for Clinical Laboratory Standards for broth microdilution and disk diffusion testing.

49 or amikacin and methicillin resistance using broth microdilution and disk diffusion testing.

50 Broth microdilution and drug disk diffusion assays demon

51 ane MIC50/MIC9(0)s to </= 0.25/0.5 mug/ml by broth microdilution and Etest.

52 sitabs tablet assay to both reference M27-A2 broth microdilution and M44-A disk diffusion methods for

53 d for vancomycin susceptibility phenotype by broth microdilution and modified population analysis.

54 ith vancomycin MICs of 2 mug/ml by reference broth microdilution and screened for hVISA using PAP-AUC

55 lin, doxycycline, lincomycin, and tylosin by broth microdilution and that to carbadox by agar dilutio

56 al agreement by all four dilution tests (two broth microdilution and two agar dilution) was achieved

57 ll produce accurate results (disk diffusion, broth microdilution, and E-test).

58 ffusion, Microscan broth microdilution, CLSI broth microdilution, and Etest).

59 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution, and selected isolates were typed by

60 A majority of laboratories (14 of 17) used broth microdilution, and these were evenly split between

61 There are currently no FDA-approved broth microdilution antifungal susceptibility testing pr

62 man MRSA from the same geographic area using broth microdilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing

63 Thus, this broth microdilution assay can serve as a reference metho

64 A broth microdilution assay using a 96-well plate was deve

65 foxitin disk diffusion test and an oxacillin broth microdilution assay were examined.

66 ollaboration with a commercial company, is a broth microdilution assay which is faster and easier to

67 Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards) broth microdilution assay, quality control (QC) MIC limi

68 ecutive clinical isolates of the MAC using a broth microdilution assay.

69 The cefoxitin disk diffusion and oxacillin broth microdilution assays categorized 100% and 61.3% of

70 cin MICs were determined using Etest and two broth microdilution assays, MicroScan and Sensititre.

71 ve values with results from colony count and broth microdilution assays.

72 ositive bacterium, Staphylococcus hyicus, in broth microdilution assays.

73 ar dilution MIC values compared to reference broth microdilution at +/-1 log(2) dilution were 88% and

74 This broth microdilution-based method has recently been expan

75 use, we explored a novel, automated, at-will broth microdilution-based susceptibility testing platfor

76 effect could not be determined initially by broth microdilution because of off-scale CAZ results.

77 overall modal MIC concordance for testing by broth microdilution (BMD) and agar dilution was >96% for

78 Although both broth microdilution (BMD) and disk diffusion (DD) are li

79 "susceptible-only" interpretive criteria for broth microdilution (BMD) and disk diffusion (DD) testin

80 vancomycin and daptomycin MICs, measured by broth microdilution (BMD) and Etest, was prospectively a

81 , and the results were compared to reference broth microdilution (BMD) and to consensus results from

82 DD test performed equivalently to oxacillin broth microdilution (BMD) and to oxacillin DD tests amon

83 Illumina MiSeq WGS and broth microdilution (BMD) assays were performed on 90 bl

84 However, broth microdilution (BMD) confirmatory testing at the Pr

85 icroScan panel compared to that of reference broth microdilution (BMD) during the testing of 64 strai

86 and AST-XN06 cards to those obtained by CLSI broth microdilution (BMD) for 255 isolates of Enterobact

87 oratory Standards Institute (CLSI) reference broth microdilution (BMD) for 99 isolates of Pseudomonas

88 usceptibility system was compared to that of broth microdilution (BMD) for the determination of MICs

89 zole and voriconazole, using the CLSI M27-A3 broth microdilution (BMD) method (24-h incubation), in o

90 oratory Standards Institute (CLSI) reference broth microdilution (BMD) method by testing 2 quality co

91 oratory Standards Institute (CLSI) reference broth microdilution (BMD) method by testing two quality

92 Studies using the EUCAST broth microdilution (BMD) method have defined wild-type

93 The antifungal broth microdilution (BMD) method of the European Committ

94 The antifungal broth microdilution (BMD) method of the European Committ

95 boratory Standards (NCCLS)-approved standard broth microdilution (BMD) method.

96 boratory Standards (NCCLS) approved standard broth microdilution (BMD) method.

97 the Etest compared to determinations by the broth microdilution (BMD) method.

98 spofungin, and micafungin, using CLSI M27-A3 broth microdilution (BMD) methods, in order to define wi

99 ntimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) broth microdilution (BMD) methods.

100 al and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution (BMD) methods.

101 For all 131 isolates, the broth microdilution (BMD) MIC of at least one extended-s

102 etect mupirocin high-level resistance (HLR), broth microdilution (BMD) MICs of >or=512 microg/ml, and

103 al and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution (BMD) reference method for 134 staph

104 al and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution (BMD) reference method for 61 isolat

105 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution (BMD) reference method for the detec

106 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution (BMD) reference methods.

107 from that observed in a separate centralized broth microdilution (BMD) surveillance.

108 penicillin could be used as a surrogate for broth microdilution (BMD) testing of imipenem versus Ent

109 Disk diffusion and broth microdilution (BMD) were used to perform clindamyc

110 phylococcus aureus isolates using (i and ii) broth microdilution (BMD) with 50-mg/liter calcium mediu

111 em (ERT), and doripenem (DOR) were tested by broth microdilution (BMD), Etest, and disk diffusion (DD

112 Broth microdilution (BMD), macrodilution (MD), and agar

113 report MIC agreement and error rates between broth microdilution (BMD), Vitek 2, and Etest against 48

114 rospective testing (Etest and CLSI reference broth microdilution [BMD] method) of stored isolates fro

115 ing which included disk diffusion, Microscan broth microdilution, Clinical and Laboratory Standards I

116 c testing methods (disk diffusion, Microscan broth microdilution, CLSI broth microdilution, and Etest

117 is study, MICs determined by custom-prepared broth microdilution compared favorably with MICs determi

118 laboratories simultaneously to determine if broth microdilution could substitute for agar dilution a

119 rison of MICs generated by agar dilution and broth microdilution demonstrated correlation coefficient

120 solates, including susceptibility testing by broth microdilution, detection of Panton-Valentine leuko

121 A commercial broth microdilution device (Sensititre; Thermo Fisher Sc

122 e performance of the HP D300 inkjet-assisted broth microdilution digital dispensing method (DDM), whi

123 organisms, we evaluated six routine methods (broth microdilution, disk diffusion, oxacillin agar scre

124 However, because visual interpretation of broth microdilution end points is subjective, it is more

125 tation method (SQM) to test 38 isolates with broth microdilution end points of </=8 microg/ml (suscep

126 specificity of seven methods (agar dilution, broth microdilution, Etest at 0.5 and 2.0 McFarland (McF

127 were compared using commercial and in-house broth microdilution, Etest, and common automated methods

128 We describe the levels of agreement between broth microdilution, Etest, Vitek 2, Sensititre, and Mic

129 Isolates were susceptibility tested by broth microdilution, examined for inducible clindamycin

130 n this evaluation did not perform as well as broth microdilution for susceptibility testing of the ra

131 ility testing (AST) methods were compared to broth microdilution for testing of Staphylococcus aureus

132 We compared Etest and disk diffusion to broth microdilution for the detection of fluoroquinolone

133 ed between the results obtained by Etest and broth microdilution for voriconazole, the Etest generall

134 oratory Standards Institute (CLSI) reference broth microdilution, gradient diffusion (Etest), 23S rRN

135 All but one isolate tested by broth microdilution had MICs of < 1.0 microg/ml, while 9

136 All isolates underwent testing by the broth microdilution (in duplicate) and agar dilution (in

137 ro results of either the E-test or the NCCLS broth microdilution (M38-P) method for Aspergillus spp.

138 rds Institute (formerly the NCCLS) reference broth microdilution method (BMD) by testing 2 quality co

139 The standard broth microdilution method (BMD) is demanding and requir

140 isolates were determined by using the NCCLS broth microdilution method (BMD), and those isolates for

141 dosporium apiospermum) by the CLSI reference broth microdilution method (M 38-A document).

142 for Clinical Laboratory Standards reference broth microdilution method and Etest (amphotericin B).

143 The reference broth microdilution method and the detection of the mecA

144 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution method and the Etest GRD (glycopepti

145 lates which gave equivocal end points by the broth microdilution method due to trailing growth.

146 tric Antifungal Panel and by the NCCLS M27-A broth microdilution method for 1,176 clinical isolates o

147 Compared to the results of the broth microdilution method for detecting linezolid-nonsu

148 n method in comparison with the NCCLS M27-A2 broth microdilution method for determining the susceptib

149 nical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) reference broth microdilution method for testing streptococci.

150 e for Clinical Laboratory Standards standard broth microdilution method for testing the susceptibilit

151 tous fungi (visual MICs) and the NCCLS M27-A broth microdilution method for yeasts (both visual and t

152 of filamentous fungi and by the NCCLS M27-A broth microdilution method for yeasts.

153 RSA-Screen test, GPS 106 card, and reference broth microdilution method had sensitivities of 95.7 (re

154 CO2; they were also tested by the reference broth microdilution method in parallel.

155 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution method incorporating cation-adjusted

156 esistance currently relies on a conventional broth microdilution method that requires a 16- to 20-h i

157 ptibility rates determined with the standard broth microdilution method using cation-adjusted Mueller

158 oratory Standards Institute (formerly NCCLS) broth microdilution method using Mueller-Hinton lysed ho

159 Similarly, concordance with the broth microdilution method was 40/43 isolates (93%) for

160 orical B. anthracis isolates obtained by the broth microdilution method were compared to those genera

161 5 isolates in each center by the NCCLS M38-A broth microdilution method with four media, standard RPM

162 was performed using a reference NCCLS frozen broth microdilution method with Haemophilus test medium

163 We compared the yeast nitrogen base (YNB) broth microdilution method with the National Committee f

164 in-salt agar screen (OS) test, the reference broth microdilution method, and the detection of the mec

165 In contrast to the broth microdilution method, the SQM determined trailing

166 isolates which gave clear end points by the broth microdilution method, the SQM MIC was within 2 dil

167 ere tested for their susceptibilities by the broth microdilution method, they were tested for inducib

168 log(2) dilution steps) with the standardized broth microdilution method, validating the use of the Et

169 Using a reference broth microdilution method, we found that the serial iso

170 ee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) broth microdilution method, which requires a minimum of

171 2 log(2) dilutions compared to the reference broth microdilution method.

172 ps A, B, C, F, and G were tested by the CLSI broth microdilution method.

173 agents were determined using a standardized broth microdilution method.

174 Standards Institute (CLSI) M27-A2 reference broth microdilution method.

175 ical isolates of Candida spp. using the CLSI broth microdilution method.

176 Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards broth microdilution method.

177 nt to fluconazole as determined by the NCCLS broth microdilution method.

178 ee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) broth microdilution method.

179 9 dilutions lower than those obtained by the broth microdilution method.

180 Cs were > or =0.5 microg/ml by the reference broth microdilution method.

181 were determined by following the NCCLS M38-P broth microdilution method.

182 ISK, Solna, Sweden) results with a reference broth microdilution method.

183 10 isolates with trailing end points by the broth microdilution method.

184 veillance Program, all tested by a reference broth microdilution method.

185 Candida species by both the CLSI and EUCAST broth microdilution methodologies.

186 0.5 log unit of the standard inoculum, using broth microdilution methodology with ceftazidime, cefota

187 tetracycline compounds by disk diffusion and broth microdilution methods according to CLSI guidelines

188 Therefore, reference broth microdilution methods and MIC ranges for quality c

189 CLSI reference broth microdilution methods and species-specific interpr

190 tested by CLSI disk diffusion and reference broth microdilution methods in the central reference lab

191 tested by NCCLS disk diffusion and reference broth microdilution methods in the central reference lab

192 thin 2 well dilutions) between the Etest and broth microdilution methods was 94%.

193 Agar dilution and broth microdilution methods were evaluated.

194 ories (Etest, disk diffusion, and Sensititre broth microdilution methods) for testing of minocycline,

195 llance Program, 1997 to 2004) were tested by broth microdilution methods, and 399 randomly selected s

196 was performed by the CLSI M27-A3 and M38-A2 broth microdilution methods.

197 afungin (102 isolates) as determined by CLSI broth microdilution methods.

198 ngin, and micafungin were determined by CLSI broth microdilution methods.

199 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution methods.

200 erived MIC (MICFAST) correspond closely with broth microdilution MIC (MICBMD, Matthew's correlation c

201 CLSI broth microdilution MIC data gathered in five independen

202 d, the SQM MIC was within 2 dilutions of the broth microdilution MIC for 33 (87%).

203 f clinical isolates using the CLSI reference broth microdilution MIC method demonstrated a tendency t

204 ntituberculosis drugs, with a convenient 7H9 broth microdilution MIC method suitable for use in resou

205 multidrug-resistant tuberculosis using a 7H9 broth microdilution MIC method.

206 Results from garenoxacin dry-form broth microdilution MIC panels prepared commercially (Se

207 fluconazole and voriconazole compared to the broth microdilution MIC reference method.

208 Reference broth microdilution MIC results for 12,796 strains of Ca

209 Reference broth microdilution MIC results for 13,338 strains of Ca

210 Broth microdilution MIC results were compared by scatter

211 laboratory study to determine if a cefoxitin broth microdilution MIC test could predict the presence

212 for Clinical Laboratory Standards reference broth microdilution MIC test method.

213 Antimicrobial susceptibility results from broth microdilution MIC testing of 993 Staphylococcus lu

214 s Institute (CLSI, formerly NCCLS) reference broth microdilution MIC testing was performed on all cli

215 For the 7H9 broth microdilution MIC, a 3-dilution QC range (0.015 to

216 on MICs and 0.015 to 0.06 mug/ml for the 7H9 broth microdilution MIC.

217 es, 25 were determined to be PB resistant by broth microdilution (MIC > 2 mug/ml), including all 7 JM

218 solates were compared to results obtained by broth microdilution (MIC), microscopic evaluation (minim

219 e than twofold higher than agar dilution and broth microdilution MICs on HTM; ampicillin Etest MICs w

220 Etest demonstrated 82.6% agreement with broth microdilution MICs, a very major error rate of 2.2

221 Modal Etest MICs agreed with those by broth microdilution only for doxycycline and the sulfona

222 t tested positive for amikacin resistance by broth microdilution or disk diffusion testing were inves

223 mpared the performance of a new colorimetric broth microdilution panel (SensiQuattro Candida EU) for

224 A commercially prepared frozen broth microdilution panel (Trek Diagnostic Systems, West

225 CroSTREP panel is a recently marketed frozen broth microdilution panel for susceptibility testing of

226 d 0.5 and 2 microg/ml) in a single well of a broth microdilution panel to predict the presence of ind

227 compared the commercial panels to reference broth microdilution panels (RBM) and Synergy Quad Agar (

228 ar dilution and commercially custom-prepared broth microdilution plates (PML Microbiologicals, Portla

229 ESP blood culture broths by using Sensititre broth microdilution plates compared to testing with isol

230 nt to results derived by the NCCLS reference broth microdilution procedure.

231 em's MIC test strip and the EUCAST reference broth microdilution protocol.

232 ), and 114 (82%) demonstrated a CA effect by broth microdilution (reduction of CAZ or CTX MICs by > o

233 ee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) broth microdilution reference method for 75 pneumococci

234 cards to the accuracy of the results of the broth microdilution reference method for detection of ci

235 60 (BD, Sparks, MD) radiometric method and a broth microdilution reference method.

236 streptococci) with the Phoenix system and a broth microdilution reference method.

237 nt using investigational test cards and by a broth microdilution reference method.

238 ee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) broth microdilution reference method.

239 s panel has comparable accuracy to the NCCLS broth microdilution reference method.

240 ttee for Clinical Laboratory Standards M27-A broth microdilution reference method.

241 pectively, all were within 1 dilution of the broth microdilution reference MIC result.

242 esults with MICs within +/-1 dilution of the broth microdilution reference MIC were excluded from ana

243 in comparison to the results obtained with a broth microdilution reference standard.

244 Standardized broth microdilution reference tests were compared to the

245 The Etest correlation with reference broth microdilution results (MIC versus MIC) was accepta

246 agreement between the agar-based methods and broth microdilution results ranged from 93 to 98%, with

247 greement between the 24-h and reference 48-h broth microdilution results ranged from 93.8% (all Candi

248 greement between the 24-h and reference 48-h broth microdilution results ranged from 97.1% (C. paraps

249 In comparison with the standard broth microdilution results, very major rates were low (

250 A broth microdilution scheme allowed direct comparison of

251 Isolates tested by the broth microdilution showed high levels of resistance; su

252 Broth microdilution susceptibilities were determined for

253 ess than 8 h, was compared with the standard broth microdilution susceptibility assay (Clinical and L

254 were each inoculated onto specially prepared broth microdilution susceptibility panels containing van

255 ltilaboratory study was conducted to compare broth microdilution susceptibility results using ambient

256 The telavancin broth microdilution susceptibility testing method was re

257 We performed Etest, disk diffusion, and broth microdilution susceptibility testing of 2,171 clin

258 We performed Etest, disk diffusion, and broth microdilution susceptibility testing of posaconazo

259 upplementation is the recommended medium for broth microdilution susceptibility tests of Brucella abo

260 For broth microdilution susceptibility tests of Francisella

261 dards Institute (CLSI)-recommended method of broth microdilution, susceptibility testing of 170 isola

262 Standardized broth microdilution techniques can be used to distinguis

263 By broth microdilution techniques, we determined the MIC va

264 ee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) broth microdilution test at center 1 (C1).

265 faster and easier to use than the reference broth microdilution test performed according to the Nati

266 ed to be resistant to oxacillin by reference broth microdilution testing (MIC, 8 microg/ml), one isol

267 difference was found between the results of broth microdilution testing and the results of the Etest

268 submitted to a central reference monitor for broth microdilution testing by Clinical and Laboratory S

269 ry (JMI Laboratories, North Liberty, IA) for broth microdilution testing by reference methods.

270 The medium recommended for the broth microdilution testing is cation-adjusted Mueller-H

271 microbiology laboratories to perform at-will broth microdilution testing of antimicrobials and to add

272 Quality control ranges were developed for broth microdilution testing of Campylobacter jejuni ATCC

273 lts showed unsatisfactory reproducibility of broth microdilution testing of ceftriaxone with N. cyria

274 or Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) for broth microdilution testing of filamentous fungi and by

275 or Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) for broth microdilution testing of the filamentous fungi (vi

276 ssess the interlaboratory reproducibility of broth microdilution testing of the more common rapidly g

277 study, six laboratories performed repetitive broth microdilution testing on single strains of Nocardi

278 in susceptible (MICs were </=1 microg/ml) by broth microdilution testing.

279 e 2-fold serial dilution series required for broth microdilution testing.

280 Broth microdilution tests held a full 24 h were best at

281 ir susceptibilities to the same drugs by the broth microdilution tests in two media, as well as by ag

282 er desorption ionization-time of flight, and broth microdilution tests were repeated to confirm the C

283 suggested the following control ranges: for broth microdilution tests, 0.004 to 0.03 microg/ml; for

284 he quality control (QC) ranges for reference broth microdilution tests.

285 by each method were compared with those from broth microdilution (the reference method), and agreemen

286 tobramycin-containing medium were tested by broth microdilution, the MICs for 28 of 121 strains (23%

287 anged from 94.9% (broth macrodilution versus broth microdilution) to 98.6% (agar dilution versus brot

288 All isolates were tested simultaneously by broth microdilution using freshly prepared Mueller-Hinto

289 Agar dilution and broth microdilution using the NCCLS breakpoint criteria

290 ting of Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) by broth microdilution using two different media (cation-ad

291 We evaluated the performance of the 24-h broth microdilution voriconazole MIC by obtaining MICs f

292 of the SensiQuattro panel with the reference broth microdilution was slightly higher for C. albicans

293 isolates that failed to show a CA effect by broth microdilution were > or =32 microg/ml, suggesting

294 sults of the agar-based methods and those of broth microdilution were 96 to 98%, with no very major e

295 MICs obtained by broth microdilution were different than MICs by any othe

296 isolates determined to be PB susceptible by broth microdilution were NP test negative.

297 ains were 0.25 to 4 microg/ml when tested by broth microdilution with 2% NaCl-supplemented cation-adj

298 sistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) by broth microdilution with polysorbate 80 (BMD-T), broth m

299 onstrated the most agreement with those from broth microdilution, with 95.6% agreement based on the M

300 in parallel using BMD-T, TDS, agar dilution, broth microdilution without polysorbate 80 (BMD), and th