ライフサイエンスコーパス: susceptibility testing

1 nded virulence genotyping, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

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

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

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

5 ed bacterial identification or antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

6 onae, do not require extended clarithromycin susceptibility testing.

7 berculosis pncA gene allows for pyrazinamide susceptibility testing.

8 d by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing.

9 establish strain type and used for extended susceptibility testing.

10 and antimicrobial therapy based on in vitro susceptibility testing.

11 ne laboratory methods for identification and susceptibility testing.

12 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

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

14 ecombination followed by sequencing and drug susceptibility testing.

15 e organism identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

16 in for highly sensitive and rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing.

17 indicator tube (MGIT) culture,and MGIT drug-susceptibility testing.

18 tifunctional assay for TB diagnosis and drug susceptibility testing.

19 Shigella isolate to the NARMS laboratory for susceptibility testing.

20 Indicator Tube (MGIT) culture with MGIT drug susceptibility testing.

21 gdom) for either confirmation of identity or susceptibility testing.

22 rs, and microbial cultures and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

23 diagnosis, therapeutic monitoring, and drug susceptibility testing.

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

25 g provides an avenue for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

26 015 were reviewed for incidence and standard susceptibility testing.

27 osfomycin disk is occasionally observed upon susceptibility testing.

28 be accelerated along with comprehensive drug susceptibility testing.

29 olate, less time than traditional phenotypic susceptibility testing.

30 chemistry, enzyme kinetics and antibacterial susceptibility testing.

31 he interlaboratory reproducibility of ME1111 susceptibility testing.

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

33 4%), because 35 samples had no growth during susceptibility testing.

34 ning appropriate antibiotic therapy prior to susceptibility testing.

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

36 m (MPEP) for Mycobacterium tuberculosis Drug Susceptibility Testing, 1994 to 2008, implemented by the

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

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

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

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

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

42 005 and 2009 to 2010 underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing and characterization of their sta

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

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

45 Isolates were serotyped; susceptibility testing and multilocus sequence typing on

46 ict treatment response than traditional drug susceptibility testing and open avenues for personalizin

47 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing and pulsed-field gel electrophore

48 isms in staphylococci, current antimicrobial susceptibility testing and reporting recommendations for

49 A subset underwent susceptibility testing and staphylococcal chromosomal ca

50 modifiable risk factors such as lack of drug susceptibility testing and suboptimal initial antituberc

51 Isolates underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing and subtyping by pulsed-field gel

52 and non-MR bacteria determined by antibiotic susceptibility testing and the biosensor assay when the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

60 whose diagnosis at least in the acute stage, susceptibility testing, and management are all dependent

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

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

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

64 2015, the CLSI Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing approved these ranges, which will

65 fic clinical situations warranting anaerobic susceptibility testing are discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

72 The long turnaround time in antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) endangers patients and enco

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

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

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

76 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of clinical isolates of Noc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

88 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing, broth enriched culture, and DNA

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

90 ed on the updated CLSI standards, phenotypic susceptibility testing by BMD and DD differentiated most

91 d on 13 VRSA and 33 VISA isolates, including susceptibility testing by broth microdilution, detection

92 Susceptibility testing by the Clinical and Laboratory St

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

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

95 Notably, antimicrobial susceptibility testing demonstrated good overall agreeme

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

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 ive tuberculosis (TB) and lack of rapid drug susceptibility testing (DST) at the point of care remain

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

103 er study was carried out to evaluate if drug susceptibility testing (DST) can be successfully carried

104 ne for selected genotypic technologies) drug susceptibility testing (DST) followed, if necessary by f

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

106 Conventional culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST) for the second-line antitub

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

116 ethods including AFB smear, culture and drug susceptibility testing (DST) using both an absolute conc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

124 Drug susceptibility testing established that ald loss of func

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

126 LSI) and European Committee of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) methodologies.

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

128 d of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) was compared with CLSI B

129 d by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST).

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

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

132 In vitro susceptibility testing for cephalosporins is not reliabl

133 Susceptibility testing for colistin should be considered

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

135 Susceptibility testing for levofloxacin was performed by

136 Improved diagnostics and drug susceptibility testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis ar

137 Drug-susceptibility testing for study purposes was done centr

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

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

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

141 Antifungal susceptibility testing has evolved from a research techn

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

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

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 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the presence of Phe-Arg-beta-n

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

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 Antifungal susceptibility testing is considered mandatory to guide

155 points for all Salmonella isolates in which susceptibility testing is indicated and discuss the tech

156 Because antimicrobial susceptibility testing is not routinely done in clinical

157 Susceptibility testing is not routinely performed, and s

158 Antimicrobial-susceptibility testing is performed to detect resistance

159 Susceptibility testing is recommended to guide therapy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

166 Standardization of the susceptibility testing method for this candidate antifun

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

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

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

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

171 multilaboratory collaboration to standardize susceptibility testing methods and to designate quality

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

173 We compared EUCAST and CLSI antifungal susceptibility testing methods for itraconazole, posacon

174 Molecular drug susceptibility testing methods provide considerable adva

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

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

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

178 inical outcome may arise from differences in susceptibility testing methods, including storage of iso

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

180 sitive and specific as routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods.

181 99 to 1), respectively, compared to standard susceptibility testing methods.

182 compared to conventional identification and susceptibility testing methods.

183 pital in the United Kingdom, using different susceptibility testing methods.

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

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

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

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

188 fluconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole susceptibility testing of 1,056 isolates of Candida.

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

190 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 66 isolates revealed that only

191 In vitro susceptibility testing of 92 isolates against nine antif

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

193 Susceptibility testing of anaerobes is not frequently pe

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

195 Antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida has been standardized

196 te on the new developments in the antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida spp. using Clinical an

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

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

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

200 For polymyxin susceptibility testing of Enterobacter species, close at

201 In vitro susceptibility testing of F901318 against more than 100

202 assay standard conditions are available for susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi (molds) to a

203 The antifungal susceptibility testing of FLC and penicillin revealed th

204 Susceptibility testing of H. pylori isolates to metronid

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

206 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of isolates from 4793 domestic an

207 BMD or Etest for cefepime and meropenem for susceptibility testing of KPC-producing K. pneumoniae, a

208 Clarithromycin susceptibility testing of MAC using the SLOMYCO panel an

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

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

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

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

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

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

215 Conventional indirect drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis wit

216 ormance and quality control of antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Mycopla

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

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

219 Antibiotic susceptibility testing of S. aureus isolates showed pans

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

221 pid, sensitive, and specific diagnostics and susceptibility testing of TB.

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

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

224 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the samples identified by MALD

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

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

227 here is a need to standardize and streamline susceptibility testing of vancomycin against MRSA.

228 The utility of Etest for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Yersinia pestis was evaluated

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

230 We performed antimicrobial susceptibility testing on all 2767 sero19A IPD isolates

231 Isolates were serotyped and antimicrobial susceptibility testing performed.

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

233 Susceptibility testing, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis

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

235 The diagnostic susceptibility testing reagents (including Etest) for fu

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

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

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

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

240 ed gyrA mutations consistent with phenotypic susceptibility testing results.

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

242 Susceptibility testing, sequencing of beta-lactamase gen

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

244 Antibacterial susceptibility testing shows minimum inhibitory concentr

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

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

247 Existing methods for antibiotic susceptibility testing suffer from several disadvantages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

258 ertook sentinel surveillance with antifungal susceptibility testing to monitor the trends in the prop

259 Susceptibility testing to natamycin and voriconazole wer

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

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

262 5.2% (for organisms submitted for antifungal susceptibility testing) to 18.2% (for organisms requirin

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

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

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

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

267 In vitro susceptibility testing using tetracycline HCL as a surro

268 Bruker MALDI Biotyper and to rapidly perform susceptibility testing using the BD Phoenix.

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

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

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

272 Cefixime susceptibility testing was done in selected isolates by

273 Antifungal susceptibility testing was performed according to CLSI d

274 Susceptibility testing was performed against 7 antifunga

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

276 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by standard methods

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

278 Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed following the Clini

279 Susceptibility testing was performed for each culture-po

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

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

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

283 Susceptibility testing was performed on 557 M. tuberculo

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

285 Extensive antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed on every isolate.

286 Molecular drug susceptibility testing was performed on skin biopsies fr

287 Disc susceptibility testing was performed using the CLSI/EUCA

288 nce between it and the results of phenotypic susceptibility testing; we also created a "toxome" consi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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