ライフサイエンスコーパス: susceptibility test

1 ith high specificity using the standard disk susceptibility test.

2 istoplasma yeasts, not hyphae, in antifungal susceptibility tests.

3 ning appropriate antibiotic therapy prior to susceptibility testing.

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

5 nded virulence genotyping, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

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

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

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

9 onae, do not require extended clarithromycin susceptibility testing.

10 berculosis pncA gene allows for pyrazinamide susceptibility testing.

11 ed bacterial identification or antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

12 d by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing.

13 establish strain type and used for extended susceptibility testing.

14 and antimicrobial therapy based on in vitro susceptibility testing.

15 ne laboratory methods for identification and susceptibility testing.

16 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

17 nst which to compare the results of colistin susceptibility testing.

18 ecombination followed by sequencing and drug susceptibility testing.

19 in for highly sensitive and rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing.

20 e organism identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

21 g provides an avenue for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

22 015 were reviewed for incidence and standard susceptibility testing.

23 osfomycin disk is occasionally observed upon susceptibility testing.

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

25 be accelerated along with comprehensive drug susceptibility testing.

26 olate, less time than traditional phenotypic susceptibility testing.

27 chemistry, enzyme kinetics and antibacterial susceptibility testing.

28 he interlaboratory reproducibility of ME1111 susceptibility testing.

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

30 4%), because 35 samples had no growth during susceptibility testing.

31 as were those who did not have baseline drug-susceptibility tests (2.24; 1.31-3.83).

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

33 spectrometry-based assay for the antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) of the potentially multidr

34 respectively, compared to those of MGIT drug susceptibility testing, after the exclusion of synonymou

35 only the second drug recommended for primary susceptibility testing against the MAC and should facili

36 Antimicrobial susceptibility tests against thirteen antimicrobial agen

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

38 005 and 2009 to 2010 underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing and characterization of their sta

39 to see changes in guidance for antimicrobial susceptibility testing and interpretation.

40 We investigated discrepancies by repeat susceptibility testing and manual inspection of the sequ

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 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing and pulsed-field gel electrophore

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 positive tuberculosis were subjected to drug susceptibility testing and to spoligotyping and variable

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

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

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

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

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

53 solates were analyzed using gene sequencing, susceptibility testing, and genotyping.

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

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

56 wth indicator tube (MGIT) culture, MGIT drug-susceptibility testing, and the Xpert MTB/RIF assay.

57 rial cultures, molecular and phenotypic drug susceptibility tests, and radiographic studies, among ot

58 2015, the CLSI Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing approved these ranges, which will

59 is data, the CLSI Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Tests approved the susceptibility testing

60 fic clinical situations warranting anaerobic susceptibility testing are discussed.

61 Laboratory facilities for drug susceptibility testing are inadequate in most tuberculos

62 ease, but standard laboratory guidelines for susceptibility testing are not available.

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

64 uggest that a rapid and robust antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) can be constructed by statisti

65 sence of FDA-cleared automated antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) devices that use revised Clini

66 Here, we report a single cell antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) approach for rapid determin

67 rate and timely performance of antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) by the clinical laboratory

68 Routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) can prevent deaths due to b

69 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is a fundamental mission of

70 The speed of conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is intrinsically limited by

71 Three commercial antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) methods were compared to br

72 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of these isolates is compli

73 pecies identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results for the most common

74 ncluding three (semi)automated antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) systems and five selective

75 ella pneumoniae demands faster antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) to guide antibiotic treatme

76 he optimal frequency of repeat antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) when an organism is recurre

77 Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) would decrease misuse and o

78 e pathogens for which accurate antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) would rule out standard tre

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

80 pted for use in broad-spectrum antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST).

81 ed by the CLSI Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing at their June 2015 meeting and we

82 luidic device that can perform antimicrobial susceptibility testing automatically via a broth dilutio

83 fluconazole for Candida (Vitek 2 AF03 yeast susceptibility test; bioMerieux, Inc., Durham, NC) was c

84 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing, broth enriched culture, and DNA

85 useful for many applications, including drug susceptibility testing, but current technologies have li

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

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

88 g results for MS, genomic, and antimicrobial susceptibility test data to hierarchical clustering resu

89 Notably, antimicrobial susceptibility testing demonstrated good overall agreeme

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

91 M USD for a tuberculosis detection plus drug susceptibility test (DST) all-in-one or 1.5M tests/year

92 treated with regimens tailored to their drug susceptibility test (DST) result or to the DST result of

93 d cases for which the initial and final drug susceptibility test (DST) results had been reported.

94 esults with available initial and final drug susceptibility test (DST) results.

95 drug regimen while awaiting second-line drug-susceptibility test (DST) results.

96 target product profile for a molecular drug-susceptibility test (DST) was developed on the basis of

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

98 egimens are creating new priorities for drug susceptibility testing (DST) and surveillance.

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

100 The Genotype MTBDRplus(R), a rapid drug susceptibility testing (DST) assay used to detect resist

101 ously, CDC does growth-based phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST) by the indirect agar propor

102 culosis depends upon reliable and valid drug susceptibility testing (DST) for pyrazinamide, ethambuto

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

104 Culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST) may take 4 weeks or longer

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

106 d using conventional liquid culture and drug susceptibility testing (DST) on solid medium and 108 (55

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

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

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

110 lates underwent standardized phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST) to isoniazid (INH), rifampi

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

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

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

114 te and clarify policies on tuberculosis drug susceptibility testing (DST), the World Health Organizat

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

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

117 ycobacterial species, and culture-based drug-susceptibility testing (DST).

118 mance of the test to that of phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST).

119 phenotypic heterogeneity in results of drug-susceptibility tests (DSTs).

120 Drug susceptibility testing established that ald loss of func

121 LSI) and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) broth microdilution (BMD

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

123 Our flow cytometry-assisted susceptibility test (FAST) method combines rapid qualita

124 loped and evaluated as a rapid antimicrobial susceptibility test for B. anthracis This method is base

125 rden setting suggested that a new rapid drug-susceptibility test for TB may be more practical for imp

126 if it is possible to develop a point-of-care susceptibility test for urinary tract infection, a disea

127 mmunity health workers; and (4) a rapid drug susceptibility test for use at the microscopy center lev

128 Results were compared with phenotypic susceptibility testing for 12 commonly used antimicrobia

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

130 Susceptibility testing for colistin should be considered

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

132 Improved diagnostics and drug susceptibility testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis ar

133 Drug-susceptibility testing for study purposes was done centr

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

135 ells is defined, interpretation of polymyxin susceptibility tests for Enterobacter species should be

136 lture-positive MTBC cases with reported drug susceptibility tests for PZA in 38 jurisdictions routine

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

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

139 renewable surface for a rapid antibacterial susceptibility test has been demonstrated.

140 Antifungal susceptibility testing has evolved from a research techn

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

142 Limited availability of drug susceptibility testing, high costs and inefficiencies in

143 tudy for the introduction of this rapid drug susceptibility test in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of

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

145 onstruction of cloned viral mutants and drug susceptibility testing in cell culture.

146 be accompanied by increased support for drug susceptibility testing in developing countries to be cli

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

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

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

150 as compared to gold-standard phenotypic drug susceptibility tests, including Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) a

151 Susceptibility testing indicated that mmpT5 mutations ar

152 tute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing interpretative standards were use

153 A study was performed to derive susceptibility testing interpretive breakpoints for doxy

154 is a key antituberculosis drug, yet no rapid susceptibility test is commercially available.

155 Antifungal susceptibility testing is considered mandatory to guide

156 Because antimicrobial susceptibility testing is not routinely done in clinical

157 Antimicrobial-susceptibility testing is performed to detect resistance

158 Susceptibility testing is recommended to guide therapy.

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

160 usceptibility testing, yet conventional drug susceptibility testing is slow, and molecular testing do

161 ACV-susceptibility testing is warranted during follow-up of

162 lin and cefoxitin testing and cefoxitin disk susceptibility testing, lacked specificity and, in some

163 In the future, susceptibility testing may help guide therapy if perform

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

165 Standardization of the susceptibility testing method for this candidate antifun

166 The telavancin broth microdilution susceptibility testing method was revised, which provide

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

168 d by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing methodology.

169 nce mechanisms in C. difficile and addresses susceptibility test methods and other strategies to coun

170 No standardized susceptibility test methods or interpretive criteria hav

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

172 An overview of a variety of susceptibility testing methods for anaerobes is provided

173 Molecular drug susceptibility testing methods provide considerable adva

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

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

176 cal isolates of E. cloacae and E. aerogenes, susceptibility testing methods with polymyxin B were ana

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

178 sitive and specific as routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods.

179 99 to 1), respectively, compared to standard susceptibility testing methods.

180 compared to conventional identification and susceptibility testing methods.

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

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

183 area using broth microdilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing, multilocus sequence typing (MLST

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

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

186 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 66 isolates revealed that only

187 In vitro susceptibility testing of 92 isolates against nine antif

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

189 Susceptibility testing of anaerobes is not frequently pe

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

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

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

193 patterns for Candida within institutions and susceptibility testing of echinocandins for C. glabrata

194 For polymyxin susceptibility testing of Enterobacter species, close at

195 In vitro susceptibility testing of F901318 against more than 100

196 The antifungal susceptibility testing of FLC and penicillin revealed th

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

198 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of isolates from 4793 domestic an

199 Antifungal Susceptibility Tests approved the susceptibility testing of ME1111 against dermatophytes a

200 c systems for screening, identification, and susceptibility testing of mecC-positive MRSA isolates.

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

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

203 rowth and detection of mycobacteria and drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by

204 , OH) uses a microtiter plate MIC format for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis com

205 Conventional indirect drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis wit

206 ical for laboratories to reject requests for susceptibility testing of other beta-lactams against sta

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

208 Vitek 2 performed reliably for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of staphylococci and enterococci.

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

210 on treatment-tailored to the results of drug susceptibility testing of the putative source case-for e

211 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the samples identified by MALD

212 er questions about dosing, pharmacology, and susceptibility testing of these drugs, yet each takes fo

213 nter- and intralaboratory reproducibility of susceptibility testing of this group of isolates.

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

215 ckman Coulter MicroScan commercial automated susceptibility test panel oxacillin MIC results were als

216 ion, microbiological analysis and antibiotic susceptibility test patterns were done following standar

217 for Microbiology (ASM) and their antibiotic susceptibility test, performed by Kirby-Bauer disc diffu

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

219 Susceptibility testing, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis

220 The isolates underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis

221 Used alone, without initial susceptibility tests, Rapidec Carba NP can provide posit

222 antimicrobial agents, e.g., the Kirby-Bauer susceptibility test, relies on time consuming methods wi

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

224 s, or Burkholderia pseudomallei Conventional susceptibility tests require 16 to 48 h of incubation, d

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

226 or improvement, as the difference in time to susceptibility test result between the full traditional

227 ssay were 100% concordant with agar dilution susceptibility test results for 100 clinical isolates.

228 Antimicrobial susceptibility test results for trimethoprim-sulfadiazin

229 proportion of household contacts whose drug-susceptibility test results matched those of the purport

230 BD Phoenix identification and antimicrobial susceptibility test results were comparable for both tim

231 More than 50% of secondary cases with drug susceptibility test results were concordant with those o

232 crude risks varying greatly by initial drug susceptibility test results: 1 in 1909 if initially susc

233 The detection of vanA agreed with susceptibility testing results for 45 of 46 cultures wit

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

235 ed gyrA mutations consistent with phenotypic susceptibility testing results.

236 aureus or S. epidermidis was concordant with susceptibility testing results.

237 al isolates that may dictate to conduct drug susceptibility test routinely.

238 amycin susceptible by in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing should be tested for inducible cl

239 Antibacterial susceptibility testing shows minimum inhibitory concentr

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

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

242 Existing methods for antibiotic susceptibility testing suffer from several disadvantages

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

244 A fully automated antifungal susceptibility test system recently updated to reflect t

245 C) is a widely used commercial antimicrobial susceptibility test system.

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

247 C) is a widely used commercial antimicrobial susceptibility testing system.

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

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

250 k record to answer these questions: in vitro susceptibility tests, the hollow fiber system model of t

251 ep identification methods, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing to determine their taxonomic stat

252 h; MDR or XDR tuberculosis confirmed by drug-susceptibility testing to first-line and second-line dru

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

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

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

256 Susceptibility testing to natamycin and voriconazole wer

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

258 inical isolates and difficulty in performing susceptibility tests to determine minimum inhibitory con

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

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

261 study was to determine the ability of a disc susceptibility test using faropenem (10 mug) to predict

262 Disc susceptibility testing using faropenem (10 mug) is a sim

263 and the possibility of conducting antifungal susceptibility testing using MALDI-TOF MS.

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

265 In vitro susceptibility testing using tetracycline HCL as a surro

266 species identification by DNA sequencing and susceptibility testing using the methods and breakpoint

267 ts in the mecA gene as an adjunct to routine susceptibility testing using the Vitek II AST-P620 card.

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

269 Drug susceptibility test was done using the Kirby-Bauer Disk

270 prospective evaluation of the faropenem disc susceptibility test was performed using 205 consecutive

271 Cefixime susceptibility testing was done in selected isolates by

272 Antifungal susceptibility testing was performed according to CLSI d

273 Susceptibility testing was performed against 7 antifunga

274 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by Sensititre(R) mi

275 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by standard methods

276 identified by DNA sequencing, and antifungal susceptibility testing was performed by the European Com

277 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed following the Clini

278 Susceptibility testing was performed for each culture-po

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

280 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed on 21% of the isola

281 Molecular drug susceptibility testing was performed on 39 US patients w

282 known as SIRE), and pyrazinamide (PZA) drug susceptibility testing was performed on 89 clinical stra

283 Extensive antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed on every isolate.

284 Molecular drug susceptibility testing was performed on skin biopsies fr

285 Disc susceptibility testing was performed using the CLSI/EUCA

286 Whole genome sequencing and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were done on 168 consecutive isol

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

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

289 ep identification methods; and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were performed on the human isola

290 sed identification methods and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were used as the reference standa

291 Antimicrobial susceptibility tests were done by the disc diffusion met

292 -hsp65) and sequencing of the rpoB gene, and susceptibility tests were performed that followed Clinic

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

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

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

296 ain WCHEC13-8 was subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility tests, whole genome sequencing and conjug

297 were subjected to antibiotic gradient strip susceptibility testing with amoxicillin, azithromycin, c

298 antitated in a norA-disrupted host strain by susceptibility testing with and without inhibitors and b

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

300 ant Mycobacterium tuberculosis requires drug susceptibility testing, yet conventional drug susceptibi