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 Antimicrobial susceptibility was measured by broth microdilution.

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

4 evofloxacin susceptibility was determined by broth microdilution.

5 were tested for antimicrobial resistance by broth microdilution.

6 d tested for antibiotic susceptibility using broth microdilution.

7 sporin present in combination when tested by broth microdilution.

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

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

10 t by broth macrodilution were susceptible by broth microdilution.

11 bility testing was conducted using automated broth microdilution.

12 d for all Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates by broth microdilution.

13 ively, compared to the results for reference broth microdilution.

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

15 ance was similarly poor for calcium-enhanced broth microdilution.

16 MICs were determined via broth microdilution.

17 elegans clinical isolates were determined by broth microdilution.

18 conventional caMHB and zinc-limited media by broth microdilution.

19 ical scavenging activity, disc-diffusion and 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 Yet current growth-based AST assays, such as broth microdilution(5), require several days before info

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ates (n = 112) were susceptibility tested by broth microdilution and disk diffusion methods in 3 labo

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

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

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

49 Broth microdilution and drug disk diffusion assays demon

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

51 were determined in triplicate via reference broth microdilution and interpreted according to CLSI gu

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 olates from enrolled patients were tested by broth microdilution and whole genome sequencing at a cen

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 andard MIC testing by both agar dilution and broth microdilution, as well as genospecies identificati

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

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

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

69 consistent with those obtained by classical broth microdilution assays for a range of antibiotics an

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

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

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

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

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

75 ion for aztreonam-avibactam AST by reference broth microdilution (BMD) according to Clinical and Labo

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

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

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

79 Broth microdilution (BMD) and disk diffusion methods hav

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 Middlebrook 7H11 agar proportion (AP) assay, broth microdilution (BMD) assay, and mycobacterial growt

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

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

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

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

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

89 e cefiderocol disk diffusion methods (DD) to broth microdilution (BMD) for AST of Gram-negative bacil

90 disk elution (CBDE) test compared to that of broth microdilution (BMD) for identifying colistin MICs.

91 methods yield equivalent results to those of broth microdilution (BMD) for imipenem-relebactam suscep

92 ion method that represents an alternative to broth microdilution (BMD) for performing antimicrobial s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

103 cillin and cefoxitin disk diffusion (DD) and broth microdilution (BMD) methods for the detection of m

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

114 imated the MIC relative to the gold standard broth microdilution (BMD) test (MIC(50) and MIC(90) of 1

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

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

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

118 ri were evaluated by cefoxitin and oxacillin broth microdilution (BMD), disk diffusion (DD), and PBP2

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

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

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

122 technique are validated by the gold standard broth microdilution (BMD).

123 d as colistin resistant (CoR) when tested by broth microdilution (BMD).

124 ll laboratories have the capacity to perform broth microdilution (BMD).

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

126 sion and Etest compared to that of reference broth microdilution by use of the revised breakpoints.

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

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

129 R) Isolate Bank isolates for which reference broth microdilution colistin susceptibility results were

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

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

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

133 nt rates across four methods: agar dilution, broth microdilution, disk diffusion, and Etest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

140 Marcy l'Etoile, France) compared to that of broth microdilution for 629 Enterobacterales and 163 Pse

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

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

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

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

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

146 ely as co-primary endpoints, were AUC/MIC by broth microdilution >=650 and AUC/MIC by Etest >=320.

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

148 obacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) isolates using broth microdilution in Middlebrook 7H9.

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

150 Only broth microdilution is recommended for polymyxin suscept

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

152 These results indicate that broth microdilution may be a reliable method for fosfomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

160 is in droplets matched the MIC obtained from broth microdilution method for all strains.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

168 vity of the compounds was assessed using the broth microdilution method to determine the minimum inhi

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

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

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

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

173 5 isolates in each center by the NCCLS M38-A broth microdilution method with four media, standard RPM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

181 2 log(2) dilutions compared to the reference broth microdilution method.

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

183 agents were determined using a standardized broth microdilution method.

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

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

186 Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards broth microdilution method.

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

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

189 9 dilutions lower than those obtained by the broth microdilution method.

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

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

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

193 0.5 log unit of the standard inoculum, using broth microdilution methodology with ceftazidime, cefota

194 and Laboratory Standards Institute reference broth microdilution methodology.

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

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

197 CLSI reference broth microdilution methods and species-specific interpr

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

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

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

201 Agar dilution and broth microdilution methods were evaluated.

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

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

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

205 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution methods.

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

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

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

209 ds Institute (CLSI) M23 tier 2 study design, broth microdilution MIC and disk diffusion quality contr

210 CLSI broth microdilution MIC data gathered in five independen

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

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

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

214 C/MIC ratio of 400-600 mg*hour/L (assuming a broth microdilution MIC of 1 mg/L) to achieve clinical e

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

216 Broth microdilution MIC QC ranges spanned 3 to 4 doublin

217 In a separate study, broth microdilution MIC quality control ranges for zolif

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

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

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

221 Broth microdilution MIC results were compared by scatter

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

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

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

225 ol ranges were approved by the CLSI in 2017 (broth microdilution MIC) and 2019 (disk diffusion).

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

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

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

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

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

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

232 in categorical agreement (CA) with reference broth microdilution MICs.

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

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

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

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

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

238 ectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) identification and broth microdilution phenotypic susceptibility testing on

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

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

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

242 60 (BD, Sparks, MD) radiometric method and a broth microdilution reference method.

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

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

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

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

247 Standardized broth microdilution reference tests were compared to the

248 mug/ml and 512 mug/ml for agar dilution and broth microdilution, respectively.

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

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

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

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

253 A broth microdilution scheme allowed direct comparison of

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

255 Broth microdilution susceptibilities were determined for

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

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

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

259 The telavancin broth microdilution susceptibility testing method was re

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

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

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

263 For broth microdilution susceptibility tests of Francisella

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

265 Standardized broth microdilution techniques can be used to distinguis

266 By broth microdilution techniques, we determined the MIC va

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

282 For Etest compared to the reference broth microdilution, the essential agreement was 100% fo

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

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

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

286 Broth microdilution using standard cation-adjusted Muell

287 Agar dilution and broth microdilution using the NCCLS breakpoint criteria

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

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

290 ) MIC agreement) of AXDX MICs with reference broth microdilution was 98.0% (96/98).

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

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

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

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

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

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

297 s were analyzed using both agar dilution and broth microdilution with a resulting high essential agre

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