ライフサイエンスコーパス: diffusion method

1 mV zeta-potential at pH 6) using an emulsion-diffusion method.

2 of Salmonella isolates was performed by disk diffusion method.

3 lly to well below 1 mum using the surfactant diffusion method.

4 erns of the isolates were determined by disk diffusion method.

5 ntimicrobials by broth dilution and the disc diffusion method.

6 ing the agar overlay technique and agar well diffusion method.

7 for antimicrobial activity by the agar disc diffusion method.

8 bitory effect was checked with the agar well diffusion method.

9 only used antibiotics using Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method.

10 rriers (NLC) were prepared using the solvent diffusion method.

11 tibiotic susceptibility was verified by disc diffusion method.

12 lates of Candida spp. by the CLSI M44-A disk diffusion method.

13 olates were identified by the oxacillin disk-diffusion method.

14 inical yeast isolates by the CLSI M44-A disk diffusion method.

15 ates by the CLSI (formerly NCCLS) M44-A disk diffusion method.

16 were confirmed by referencing to a capillary diffusion method.

17 o those generated by the Etest agar gradient diffusion method.

18 microorganisms was assessed by the agar well-diffusion method.

19 ceptibility tests were performed by the disk diffusion method.

20 cting fluconazole-resistant yeasts by a disk diffusion method.

21 both thin-layer chromatography and the fluor diffusion method.

22 plet evaporation method and novel surfactant diffusion methods.

23 ere encountered with both automated and disk diffusion methods.

24 eptibility testing criteria for MIC and disk diffusion methods.

25 l susceptibility tests were done by the disc diffusion method according to British Society of Antimic

26 ity test was done using the Kirby-Bauer Disk diffusion method according to the guidelines of Clinical

27 7.2 against 43% of the isolates by the disk diffusion method and against 52% of the isolates by the

28 crobial agents were determined using the K-B diffusion method and eTest.

29 for antimicrobial susceptibility by the disk-diffusion method and the Etest.

30 ently recommended CLSI (formerly NCCLS) disk diffusion method and the inoculum purity control method.

31 tibility to 11 antimicrobials using the disk diffusion method and validated using VITEK 2 (bioMerieux

32 RECENT FINDINGS: A flourishing of diffusion methods and models are bringing new solutions

33 penems (meropenem, imipenem) by MIC and disk diffusion methods and to compare disk diffusion test res

34 system against Escherichia coli by the disk diffusion method, and antitumor efficacy toward the HeLa

35 TT, nitric oxide inhibitory assay, agar disc diffusion method, and DPPH and ABTS assays.

36 of the isolates were determined by the disk diffusion method, and gas chromatography was used to stu

37 bial activity was evaluated by the agar disk diffusion method, and in vitro cytotoxic activity was ex

38 by the agar, microdilution, E test, and disk diffusion methods; and (iii) incubation in CO(2) led to

39 Overall, both agar diffusion methods appear to be broadly acceptable for ro

40 d and present several variations on the disk diffusion method as applied to serum or urine, including

41 ithin and between two loci are obtained by a diffusion method assuming relatively strong selection.

42 E-test (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden) and disk diffusion methods (both in CO(2)).

43 hen testing was performed by the E-test agar diffusion method, both RPMI 1640 medium and antibiotic m

44 Use of this slow diffusion method combined with prediction of molecular s

45 vulanic acid (CA) effect by BMD and the disk diffusion method (confirmation tests).

46 The disk diffusion method correlated well (zone diameter versus M

47 d into silver-based volume holograms using a diffusion method coupled with a holographic recording us

48 re transformed into volume holograms using a diffusion method coupled with holographic recording, usi

49 re transformed into volume holograms using a diffusion method coupled with holographic recording, usi

50 The disk diffusion method detected all ESBL-producing isolates, t

51 the performance of a commercialized gradient diffusion method (Etest method) as an alternative to BMD

52 st results determined by the CLSI M44-A disk diffusion method for 11,240 isolates of noncandidal yeas

53 ed to evaluate the reproducibility of a disk diffusion method for testing isolates of N. meningitidis

54 standardized agar dilution and the agar disk diffusion methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testi

55 r isolates were tested by standard CLSI disk diffusion methods for detecting extended-spectrum beta-l

56 between the microdilution, E-test, and disk diffusion methods for posaconazole against Candida spp.

57 were tested by broth microdilution and disk diffusion methods for susceptibility to trimethoprim (TM

58 The performances of the Etest and the disk diffusion methods for testing of the susceptibilities of

59 of these alternative broth dilution and agar diffusion methods for testing posaconazole and amphoteri

60 ce M27-A2 broth microdilution and M44-A disk diffusion methods for testing susceptibilities of 110 is

61 reference M38-A broth microdilution and disk diffusion methods for testing the susceptibility of 183

62 e evaluated the NCCLS M44-P fluconazole disk diffusion method in comparison with the NCCLS M27-A2 bro

63 tibility test, performed by Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method in conformity with the CLSI guideline.

64 A disc diffusion method is used in the United Kingdom, whereas

65 Although there are limitations to the disk diffusion method, its low cost, ease of use, and ability

66 ast isolates by recently endorsed NCCLS disk diffusion method M44-P.

67 nd Candida krusei ATCC 6258 by the CLSI disk diffusion method (M51-A document).

68 8), major (n = 4), and, along with the disk diffusion method, minor (n = 6) errors.

69 d used individually in the conventional disc-diffusion method of antibiotic susceptibility determinat

70 The agar disk diffusion method of the essential oil was effective agai

71 CLSI reference broth microdilution and disk diffusion methods on a collection of genetically charact

72 les and to test the hypotheses that the disc diffusion method overscores resistance and that isolates

73 The agar-based Etest and disk diffusion methods performed well for the testing of both

74 s antimicrobial susceptibility (MIC and disk diffusion methods) quality control (QC) parameters for s

75 fied as azithromycin susceptible by the disk diffusion method, regardless of the medium pH.

76 ects by DPPH, ABTS, FRAP, ORAC and agar disc diffusion methods, respectively.

77 ontinued serious testing error with the disk diffusion method, the possible need for breakpoint adjus

78 agar dilution, broth microdilution, and disk diffusion methods, the epsilometer test (E-test), and th

79 The potential for the use of the disk diffusion method to accurately predict penicillin MICs f

80 eveloped a sensitive and quantitative radial diffusion method to ascertain the susceptibility of six

81 alysis patients reflect a failure of passive diffusion methods to duplicate the efficacy of clearance

82 With the disk diffusion method using MH agar from BD and Oxoid, suscep

83 The disk diffusion method using Mueller-Hinton agar supplemented

84 Here, we present a simple solid state diffusion method utilizing atomic layer deposition to co

85 The standard disk diffusion method was used to resolve discordant AST resu

86 An antibiotic disc diffusion method was used to select mutants with wild-ty

87 rmined after either 48 or 72 h when the agar diffusion method was used.

88 tibility Testing (EUCAST) and the Etest agar diffusion method were compared with the Clinical and Lab

89 t our institution and that the standard disk diffusion method with cefpodoxime and the DD method with

90 tion with clavulanate; and the standard disk diffusion method with new breakpoints and standard conce

91 Although the disk diffusion method with standard breakpoints identified 28