1887
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

False non-susceptible results of tigecycline susceptibility testing against Enterobacteriaceae by an automated system: a multicentre study, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/jmm/65/8/877_jmm000281-1.gif

There is no abstract available for this article.
Use the preview function to the left.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000281
2016-08-01
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/65/8/877.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000281&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bradford P. A., Petersen P. J., Young M., Jones C. H., Tischler M., O'Connell J..( 2005;). Tigecycline MIC testing by broth dilution requires use of fresh medium or addition of the biocatalytic oxygen-reducing reagent oxyrase to standardize the test method. . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49: 3903–3909. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cohen Stuart J., Mouton J. W., Diederen B. M., Al Naiemi N., Thijsen S., Vlaminckx B. J., Fluit A. C., Leverstein-van Hall M. A..( 2010;). Evaluation of Etest to determine tigecycline MICs for Enterobacter species. . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54: 2746–2747. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Fernández-Mazarrasa C., Mazarrasa O., Calvo J., Del Arco A., Martínez-Martínez L..( 2009;). High concentrations of manganese in Mueller-Hinton agar increase MICs of tigecycline determined by Etest. . J Clin Microbiol 47: 827–829. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hope R., Mushtaq S., James D., Pllana T., Warner M., Livermore D. M..Tigecycline Susceptibility Testing Group( 2010;). Tigecycline activity: low resistance rates but problematic disc breakpoints revealed by a multicentre sentinel survey in the UK. . J Antimicrob Chemother 65: 2602–2609. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Huang T. D., Berhin C., Bogaerts P., Glupczynski Y..( 2012;). In vitro susceptibility of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates to tigecycline. . J Antimicrob Chemother 67: 2696–2699. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ISO( 2006;). 20776-1. Clinical laboratory testing and in vitro diagnostic test systems − Susceptibility testing of infectious agents and evaluation of performance of antimicrobial susceptibility test devices − Part 1: Reference method for testing the in vitro activity of antimicrobial agents against rapidly growing aerobic bacteria involved in infectious diseases. International Organization for Standardization. . Geneva, Switzerland:.
  7. ISO( 2007;). 20776-2. Clinical laboratory testing and in vitro diagnostic test systems − Susceptibility testing of infectious agents and evaluation of performance of antimicrobial susceptibility test devices − Part 2: evaluation of performance of antimicrobial susceptibility test devices. International Organization for Standardization. . Geneva, Switzerland:.
  8. Lat A., Clock S. A., Wu F., Whittier S., Della-Latta P., Fauntleroy K., Jenkins S. G., Saiman L., Kubin C. J..( 2011;). Comparison of polymyxin B, tigecycline, cefepime, and meropenem MICs for KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae by broth microdilution, Vitek 2, and Etest. . J Clin Microbiol 49: 1795–1798. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Leal Castro A. L., Buitrago Gutierrez G., Ovalle V., Cortes J. A., Alvarez C. A..Colombian Tigecycline Susceptibility Surveillance Group( 2010;). Comparing in vitro activity of tigecycline by using the disk diffusion test, the manual microdilution method, and the VITEK 2 automated system. . Rev Argent Microbiol 42: 208–211.[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Marchaim D., Pogue J. M., Tzuman O., Hayakawa K., Lephart P. R., Salimnia H., Painter T., Zervos M. J., Johnson L. E. et al.( 2014;). Major variation in MICs of tigecycline in gram-negative bacilli as a function of testing method. . J Clin Microbiol 52: 1617–1621. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing( 2012a;). Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 2.0. http://www.eucast.org
  12. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing( 2012b;). EUCAST Disk Diffusion Method for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Version 2.1. http://www.eucast.org
  13. Torrico M., González N., Giménez M. J., Alou L., Sevillano D., Navarro D., Díaz-Antolín M. P., Larrosa N., Aguilar L. et al.( 2010;). Influence of media and testing methodology on susceptibility to tigecycline of Enterobacteriaceae with reported high tigecycline MIC. . J Clin Microbiol 48: 2243–2246. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ullery M..( 2006;). Are VITEK® 2 MICs "Real" MICs?. bioMérieux Connection 3: 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Zarkotou O., Pournaras S., Altouvas G., Pitiriga V., Tziraki M., Mamali V., Themeli-Digalaki K., Tsakris A..( 2012;). Comparative evaluation of tigecycline susceptibility testing methods for expanded-spectrum cephalosporin- and carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. . J Clin Microbiol 50: 3747–3750. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000281
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000281
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary File 1



PDF
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error