ライフサイエンスコーパス: microdilution

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

2 MICs were determined via broth microdilution.

3 pared the results to those obtained by broth microdilution.

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

5 roth macrodilution were susceptible by broth microdilution.

6 testing was conducted using automated broth microdilution.

7 s clinical isolates were determined by broth microdilution.

8 all Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates by broth microdilution.

9 25 and 100%, respectively, compared to broth microdilution.

10 cavenging activity, disc-diffusion and broth microdilution.

11 crobial susceptibility was measured by broth microdilution.

12 s for 128 A. urinae isolates tested by broth microdilution.

13 xacin susceptibility was determined by broth microdilution.

14 tested for antimicrobial resistance by broth microdilution.

15 ed for antibiotic susceptibility using broth microdilution.

16 present in combination when tested by broth microdilution.

17 Based on broth microdilution, 0%, 2.2%, and 97.8% of the KPC isolates w

18 n resistance determination compared to broth microdilution (16 to 20 h), our study indicates that it

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

20 ely, were as follows: oxacillin MIC by broth microdilution, 94.4% and 96.7%; oxacillin screen agar, 9

21 of oxacillin previously determined by broth microdilution according to CLSI guidelines.

22 MICs were determined using broth microdilution according to the CLSI reference method M27

23 antibiotic classes were determined by broth microdilution according to the guidelines of the Clinica

24 All isolates were MIC tested by broth microdilution against ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and o

25 imal inhibitory concentration (MIC) by broth microdilution against Mycobacterium smegmatis as a funct

26 sus result of three reference methods: broth microdilution, agar dilution, and disk diffusion.

27 solates to doripenem was determined by broth microdilution, agar dilution, and Etest.

28 inis, and Ureaplasma urealyticum using broth microdilution and agar dilution techniques.

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

30 ., including MDR strains, by reference broth microdilution and disk diffusion (15-mug disk content) m

31 estis was evaluated in comparison with broth microdilution and disk diffusion for eight agents.

32 s tablet assay to both reference M38-A broth microdilution and disk diffusion methods for testing the

33 oScan dried panels with CLSI reference broth microdilution and disk diffusion methods on a collection

34 (QC) study was performed to establish broth microdilution and disk diffusion QC ranges for strains S

35 cal and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution and disk diffusion reference methods.

36 ts generated at the CDC with the NCCLS broth microdilution and disk diffusion reference methods.

37 Broth microdilution and disk diffusion susceptibility testing

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

39 kacin and methicillin resistance using broth microdilution and disk diffusion testing.

40 Broth microdilution and drug disk diffusion assays demonstrate

41 As current microdilution and E-test methods are limited by a 2 to 3

42 ro correlations with in vivo outcome of both microdilution and Etest procedures may detect more-relev

43 C50/MIC9(0)s to </= 0.25/0.5 mug/ml by broth microdilution and Etest.

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

45 vancomycin susceptibility phenotype by broth microdilution and modified population analysis.

46 With microdilution and Mueller-Hinton broth, agreement by int

47 ncomycin MICs of 2 mug/ml by reference broth microdilution and screened for hVISA using PAP-AUC (21/1

48 oxycycline, lincomycin, and tylosin by broth microdilution and that to carbadox by agar dilution.

49 eement by all four dilution tests (two broth microdilution and two agar dilution) was achieved in onl

50 n, Microscan broth microdilution, CLSI broth microdilution, and Etest).

51 cal and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution, and selected isolates were typed by pulse

52 jority of laboratories (14 of 17) used broth microdilution, and these were evenly split between the N

53 There are currently no FDA-approved broth microdilution antifungal susceptibility testing products

54 SA from the same geographic area using broth microdilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing, mult

55 were tested using the CLSI M27-A2 method for microdilution, as well as the M-44A method and E-test me

56 Susceptibility was determined using a microdilution assay (Sensititre YeastOne; Trek Diagnosti

57 A broth microdilution assay using a 96-well plate was developed

58 A microdilution assay was used to determine antibacterial

59 n disk diffusion test and an oxacillin broth microdilution assay were examined.

60 tee for Clinical Laboratory Standards) broth microdilution assay, quality control (QC) MIC limits hav

61 -positive and Gram-negative bacteria using a microdilution assay.

62 e clinical isolates of the MAC using a broth microdilution assay.

63 sa and Staphylococcus aureus was assessed by microdilution assay.

64 cefoxitin disk diffusion and oxacillin broth microdilution assays categorized 100% and 61.3% of isola

65 Cs were determined using Etest and two broth microdilution assays, MicroScan and Sensititre.

66 can be tested using broth macrodilution and microdilution assays.

67 ibiotic-modifying activity were evaluated by microdilution assays.

68 e bacterium, Staphylococcus hyicus, in broth microdilution assays.

69 ution MIC values compared to reference broth microdilution at +/-1 log(2) dilution were 88% and 94%,

70 g may be performed by broth macrodilution or microdilution at either pH, with NCCLS-recommended inter

71 e explored a novel, automated, at-will broth microdilution-based susceptibility testing platform.

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

73 l modal MIC concordance for testing by broth microdilution (BMD) and agar dilution was >96% for all t

74 Although both broth microdilution (BMD) and disk diffusion (DD) are listed b

75 ptible-only" interpretive criteria for broth microdilution (BMD) and disk diffusion (DD) testing of d

76 mycin and daptomycin MICs, measured by broth microdilution (BMD) and Etest, was prospectively assesse

77 the results were compared to reference broth microdilution (BMD) and to consensus results from three

78 st performed equivalently to oxacillin broth microdilution (BMD) and to oxacillin DD tests among S. a

79 Illumina MiSeq WGS and broth microdilution (BMD) assays were performed on 90 bloodstr

80 However, broth microdilution (BMD) confirmatory testing at the Project

81 an panel compared to that of reference broth microdilution (BMD) during the testing of 64 strains enr

82 T-XN06 cards to those obtained by CLSI broth microdilution (BMD) for 255 isolates of Enterobacteriace

83 y Standards Institute (CLSI) reference broth microdilution (BMD) for 99 isolates of Pseudomonas aerug

84 ibility system was compared to that of broth microdilution (BMD) for the determination of MICs of var

85 nd voriconazole, using the CLSI M27-A3 broth microdilution (BMD) method (24-h incubation), in order t

86 y Standards Institute (CLSI) reference broth microdilution (BMD) method by testing 2 quality control

87 y Standards Institute (CLSI) reference broth microdilution (BMD) method by testing two quality contro

88 Studies using the EUCAST broth microdilution (BMD) method have defined wild-type (WT) M

89 The antifungal broth microdilution (BMD) method of the European Committee on

90 The antifungal broth microdilution (BMD) method of the European Committee on

91 ry Standards (NCCLS)-approved standard broth microdilution (BMD) method.

92 ry Standards (NCCLS) approved standard broth microdilution (BMD) method.

93 test compared to determinations by the broth microdilution (BMD) method.

94 gin, and micafungin, using CLSI M27-A3 broth microdilution (BMD) methods, in order to define wild-typ

95 robial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) broth microdilution (BMD) methods.

96 Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution (BMD) methods.

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

98 mupirocin high-level resistance (HLR), broth microdilution (BMD) MICs of >or=512 microg/ml, and a 6-m

99 Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution (BMD) reference method for 134 staphylococ

100 Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution (BMD) reference method for 61 isolates of

101 cal and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution (BMD) reference method for the detection o

102 cal and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution (BMD) reference methods.

103 hat observed in a separate centralized broth microdilution (BMD) surveillance.

104 illin could be used as a surrogate for broth microdilution (BMD) testing of imipenem versus Enterococ

105 Disk diffusion and broth microdilution (BMD) were used to perform clindamycin (CL

106 occus aureus isolates using (i and ii) broth microdilution (BMD) with 50-mg/liter calcium medium supp

107 T), and doripenem (DOR) were tested by broth microdilution (BMD), Etest, and disk diffusion (DD), and

108 Broth microdilution (BMD), macrodilution (MD), and agar diluti

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

110 tive testing (Etest and CLSI reference broth microdilution [BMD] method) of stored isolates from 2006

111 e Colorimetric Antifungal plate to reference microdilution broth (NCCLS M27-A2 document) MICs of thre

112 boratory Standards (NCCLS) proposed standard microdilution broth method.

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

114 ) between each test system and the reference microdilution broth reference method for S. pneumoniae A

115 posaconazole were compared to reference 48-h microdilution broth visual MICs (CLSI [formerly NCCLS] M

116 ich included disk diffusion, Microscan broth microdilution, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institu

117 ing methods (disk diffusion, Microscan broth microdilution, CLSI broth microdilution, and Etest).

118 s, including susceptibility testing by broth microdilution, detection of Panton-Valentine leukocidin

119 A commercial broth microdilution device (Sensititre; Thermo Fisher Scientif

120 ormance of the HP D300 inkjet-assisted broth microdilution digital dispensing method (DDM), which was

121 sms, we evaluated six routine methods (broth microdilution, disk diffusion, oxacillin agar screen, Mi

122 We examined the correlation between the microdilution, E-test, and disk diffusion methods for po

123 ever, because visual interpretation of broth microdilution end points is subjective, it is more prone

124 icity of seven methods (agar dilution, broth microdilution, Etest at 0.5 and 2.0 McFarland (McF) inoc

125 compared using commercial and in-house broth microdilution, Etest, and common automated methods.

126 scribe the levels of agreement between broth microdilution, Etest, Vitek 2, Sensititre, and MicroScan

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

128 g agar-based methods a viable alternative to microdilution for posaconazole susceptibility testing.

129 testing (AST) methods were compared to broth microdilution for testing of Staphylococcus aureus and e

130 e compared Etest and disk diffusion to broth microdilution for the detection of fluoroquinolone resis

131 ween the results obtained by Etest and broth microdilution for voriconazole, the Etest generally prov

132 y Standards Institute (CLSI) reference broth microdilution, gradient diffusion (Etest), 23S rRNA gene

133 All but one isolate tested by broth microdilution had MICs of < 1.0 microg/ml, while 96% of

134 Researchers employed microdilution high-volume sampling systems in conjunctio

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

136 ults of either the E-test or the NCCLS broth microdilution (M38-P) method for Aspergillus spp. needs

137 stitute (formerly the NCCLS) reference broth microdilution method (BMD) by testing 2 quality control

138 The standard broth microdilution method (BMD) is demanding and requires exp

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

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

141 linical Laboratory Standards reference broth microdilution method and Etest (amphotericin B).

142 The reference broth microdilution method and the detection of the mecA gene

143 cal and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution method and the Etest GRD (glycopeptide res

144 oratory Standards Institute (CLSI) reference microdilution method by testing 2 quality control strain

145 nical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) reference microdilution method by testing two quality control stra

146 tudy investigated the reproducibility of the microdilution method developed at the Center for Medical

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

148 od in comparison with the NCCLS M27-A2 broth microdilution method for determining the susceptibility

149 Clinical Laboratory Standards standard broth microdilution method for testing the susceptibility of H

150 they were also tested by the reference broth microdilution method in parallel.

151 cal and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution method incorporating cation-adjusted Muell

152 nce currently relies on a conventional broth microdilution method that requires a 16- to 20-h incubat

153 ity rates determined with the standard broth microdilution method using cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinto

154 y Standards Institute (formerly NCCLS) broth microdilution method using Mueller-Hinton lysed horse bl

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

156 B. anthracis isolates obtained by the broth microdilution method were compared to those generated by

157 ates in each center by the NCCLS M38-A broth microdilution method with four media, standard RPMI 1640

158 rformed using a reference NCCLS frozen broth microdilution method with Haemophilus test medium (HTM)

159 t agar screen (OS) test, the reference broth microdilution method, and the detection of the mecA gene

160 correlate well with both the E-test and the microdilution method, making agar-based methods a viable

161 A checkerboard microdilution method, performed according to the recomme

162 sted for their susceptibilities by the broth microdilution method, they were tested for inducible cli

163 dilution steps) with the standardized broth microdilution method, validating the use of the Etest as

164 Using a reference broth microdilution method, we found that the serial isolates

165 nce Program, all tested by a reference broth microdilution method.

166 2) dilutions compared to the reference broth microdilution method.

167 B, C, F, and G were tested by the CLSI broth microdilution method.

168 s were determined using a standardized broth microdilution method.

169 ards Institute (CLSI) M27-A2 reference broth microdilution method.

170 testing is an attractive alternative to the microdilution method.

171 diameters was better for the E-test than the microdilution method.

172 solates of Candida spp. using the CLSI broth microdilution method.

173 ttee for Clinical Laboratory Standards broth microdilution method.

174 fluconazole as determined by the NCCLS broth microdilution method.

175 Laboratory Standards M7-A5 frozen reference microdilution method.

176 Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) broth microdilution method.

177 tions lower than those obtained by the broth microdilution method.

178 e > or =0.5 microg/ml by the reference broth microdilution method.

179 ted States, all tested by the CLSI reference microdilution method.

180 da species by both the CLSI and EUCAST broth microdilution methodologies.

181 g unit of the standard inoculum, using broth microdilution methodology with ceftazidime, cefotaxime,

182 ttee for Clinical Laboratory Standards M27-A microdilution methodology with RPMI 1640, RPMI 1640 supp

183 ycline compounds by disk diffusion and broth microdilution methods according to CLSI guidelines.

184 Therefore, reference broth microdilution methods and MIC ranges for quality control

185 CLSI reference broth microdilution methods and species-specific interpretive

186 d by CLSI disk diffusion and reference broth microdilution methods in the central reference laborator

187 by NCCLS disk diffusion and reference broth microdilution methods in the central reference laborator

188 rog/ml, the agreement between the E-test and microdilution methods was 87.8% at 24 h and 93.0% at 48

189 well dilutions) between the Etest and broth microdilution methods was 94%.

190 Agar dilution and broth microdilution methods were evaluated.

191 (Etest, disk diffusion, and Sensititre broth microdilution methods) for testing of minocycline, tigec

192 Program, 1997 to 2004) were tested by broth microdilution methods, and 399 randomly selected strains

193 erformed by the CLSI M27-A3 and M38-A2 broth microdilution methods.

194 n (102 isolates) as determined by CLSI broth microdilution methods.

195 amphotericin B by the E-test and NCCLS M38-P microdilution methods.

196 and micafungin were determined by CLSI broth microdilution methods.

197 cal and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution methods.

198 MIC (MICFAST) correspond closely with broth microdilution MIC (MICBMD, Matthew's correlation coeffic

199 CLSI broth microdilution MIC data gathered in five independent labo

200 ical isolates using the CLSI reference broth microdilution MIC method demonstrated a tendency toward

201 erculosis drugs, with a convenient 7H9 broth microdilution MIC method suitable for use in resource-li

202 rug-resistant tuberculosis using a 7H9 broth microdilution MIC method.

203 Results from garenoxacin dry-form broth microdilution MIC panels prepared commercially (Sensitit

204 azole and voriconazole compared to the broth microdilution MIC reference method.

205 Reference broth microdilution MIC results for 12,796 strains of Candida

206 Reference broth microdilution MIC results for 13,338 strains of Candida

207 Broth microdilution MIC results were compared by scattergram a

208 tory study to determine if a cefoxitin broth microdilution MIC test could predict the presence of mec

209 imicrobial susceptibility results from broth microdilution MIC testing of 993 Staphylococcus lugdunen

210 itute (CLSI, formerly NCCLS) reference broth microdilution MIC testing was performed on all clinicall

211 a subculture of the isolate was tested by a microdilution MIC using YeastOne (TREK Diagnostics Syste

212 For the 7H9 broth microdilution MIC, a 3-dilution QC range (0.015 to 0.06

213 s and 0.015 to 0.06 mug/ml for the 7H9 broth microdilution MIC.

214 were determined to be PB resistant by broth microdilution (MIC > 2 mug/ml), including all 7 JMI isol

215 s were compared to results obtained by broth microdilution (MIC), microscopic evaluation (minimal eff

216 twofold higher than agar dilution and broth microdilution MICs on HTM; ampicillin Etest MICs were ne

217 The E-test and microdilution MICs show good concordance and interpretat

218 agreement percentages between the Etest and microdilution MICs were 97.6% for voriconazole and 95.8%

219 test demonstrated 82.6% agreement with broth microdilution MICs, a very major error rate of 2.2%, and

220 ed positive for amikacin resistance by broth microdilution or disk diffusion testing were investigate

221 the performance of a new colorimetric broth microdilution panel (SensiQuattro Candida EU) for antifu

222 A commercially prepared, dried colorimetric microdilution panel (Sensititre YeastOne Trek Diagnostic

223 A commercially prepared dried colorimetric microdilution panel (Sensititre YeastOne, TREK Diagnosti

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

225 The Trek microdilution panel appears to be a viable alternative t

226 estlake, Ohio) was compared with a reference microdilution panel for antifungal susceptibility testin

227 A dried investigational use-only microdilution panel named betalasEN (a short named deriv

228 and 2 microg/ml) in a single well of a broth microdilution panel to predict the presence of inducible

229 We compared the dried MicroScan microdilution panel, Synergy Quad plate agar dilution, a

230 ach isolate was tested by a frozen reference microdilution panel, the MicroScan ESbetaL plus confirma

231 ion and were assessed independently for each microdilution panel.

232 For each isolate, a total of 30 microdilution panels from three different lots were test

233 Results were compared to frozen microdilution panels prepared according to NCCLS specifi

234 appears to be a viable alternative to frozen microdilution panels prepared in-house.

235 ished limits for both the reference and Trek microdilution panels.

236 ood culture broths by using Sensititre broth microdilution plates compared to testing with isolated c

237 Microdilution plates were inoculated and interpreted acc

238 IC test strip and the EUCAST reference broth microdilution protocol.

239 114 (82%) demonstrated a CA effect by broth microdilution (reduction of CAZ or CTX MICs by > or =3 d

240 , Sparks, MD) radiometric method and a broth microdilution reference method.

241 tococci) with the Phoenix system and a broth microdilution reference method.

242 ng investigational test cards and by a broth microdilution reference method.

243 Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) broth microdilution reference method.

244 parison to the results obtained with a broth microdilution reference standard.

245 Standardized broth microdilution reference tests were compared to the zone

246 ent between the agar-based methods and broth microdilution results ranged from 93 to 98%, with <1% ve

247 nt between the 24-h and reference 48-h broth microdilution results ranged from 93.8% (all Candida spe

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

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

250 A broth microdilution scheme allowed direct comparison of the MI

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

252 Broth microdilution susceptibilities were determined for all s

253 an 8 h, was compared with the standard broth microdilution susceptibility assay (Clinical and Laborat

254 ach inoculated onto specially prepared broth microdilution susceptibility panels containing vancomyci

255 oratory study was conducted to compare broth microdilution susceptibility results using ambient air (

256 rlaboratory reproducibility with caspofungin microdilution susceptibility testing against panels comp

257 The telavancin broth microdilution susceptibility testing method was revised,

258 e performed Etest, disk diffusion, and broth microdilution susceptibility testing of 2,171 clinical i

259 e performed Etest, disk diffusion, and broth microdilution susceptibility testing of posaconazole aga

260 entation is the recommended medium for broth microdilution susceptibility tests of Brucella abortus,

261 For broth microdilution susceptibility tests of Francisella tulare

262 Institute (CLSI)-recommended method of broth microdilution, susceptibility testing of 170 isolates of

263 Standardized broth microdilution techniques can be used to distinguish FKS

264 By broth microdilution techniques, we determined the MIC values o

265 Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) broth microdilution test at center 1 (C1).

266 is study has demonstrated that a single-well microdilution test incorporating erythromycin and clinda

267 be resistant to oxacillin by reference broth microdilution testing (MIC, 8 microg/ml), one isolate wa

268 rence was found between the results of broth microdilution testing and the results of the Etest metho

269 ted to a central reference monitor for broth microdilution testing by Clinical and Laboratory Standar

270 I Laboratories, North Liberty, IA) for broth microdilution testing by reference methods.

271 The medium recommended for the broth microdilution testing is cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton

272 While standardized microdilution testing methodologies and quality control

273 iology laboratories to perform at-will broth microdilution testing of antimicrobials and to address a

274 lity control ranges were developed for broth microdilution testing of Campylobacter jejuni ATCC 33560

275 owed unsatisfactory reproducibility of broth microdilution testing of ceftriaxone with N. cyriacigeor

276 six laboratories performed repetitive broth microdilution testing on single strains of Nocardia bras

277 Microdilution testing was performed according to NCCLS r

278 ld serial dilution series required for broth microdilution testing.

279 ceptibilities to the same drugs by the broth microdilution tests in two media, as well as by agar dil

280 Macrotiter or microdilution tests were performed according to the NCCL

281 orption ionization-time of flight, and broth microdilution tests were repeated to confirm the CRE phe

282 lity control (QC) ranges for reference broth microdilution tests.

283 h method were compared with those from broth microdilution (the reference method), and agreement was

284 mycin-containing medium were tested by broth microdilution, the MICs for 28 of 121 strains (23%) grow

285 from 94.9% (broth macrodilution versus broth microdilution) to 98.6% (agar dilution versus broth micr

286 events per isolate) by using a common lot of microdilution trays and BACTEC 12B medium, pH 6.8; strai

287 hod (both drugs and both pH values) and with microdilution using 7H9 broth.

288 isolates were tested simultaneously by broth microdilution using freshly prepared Mueller-Hinton brot

289 Agar dilution and broth microdilution using the NCCLS breakpoint criteria for va

290 f Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) by broth microdilution using two different media (cation-adjusted

291 evaluated the performance of the 24-h broth microdilution voriconazole MIC by obtaining MICs for 2,1

292 within two dilutions) between the E-test and microdilution was 64.8% at 24 h and 82.6% at 48 h.

293 SensiQuattro panel with the reference broth microdilution was slightly higher for C. albicans (87%)

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

295 MICs obtained by broth microdilution were different than MICs by any other meth

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

297 ess of the pH of the medium, but varied when microdilution with either medium was used, particularly

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

299 ted the most agreement with those from broth microdilution, with 95.6% agreement based on the MIC and

300 allel using BMD-T, TDS, agar dilution, broth microdilution without polysorbate 80 (BMD), and the TREK