Comparison of five commonly used automated susceptibility testing methods for accuracy in the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) hospitals

Clicks: 392
ID: 6098
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #50 of 1,693 articles by views in Infection and drug resistance

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,693 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Comparison of five commonly used automated susceptibility testing methods for accuracy in the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) hospitals Menglan Zhou,1–3 Yao Wang,1,3 Chang Liu,1–3 Timothy Kudinha,4 Xiaolin Liu,5,6 Yanping Luo,7 Qiwen Yang,1,3,6 Hongli Sun,1,3,6 Jihong Hu,8 Ying-Chun Xu1,3,6 1Department of Clinical Laboratory, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China; 2Graduate School, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China; 3Beijing Key Laboratory for Mechanisms Research and Precision Diagnosis of Invasive Fungal Diseases, Beijing, China; 4Department of Clinical Laboratory, Charles Sturt University, Leeds Parade, Orange, New South Wales, Australia; 5National Health and Family Planning Commission Expert Committee for Clinical Use of Antibiotics and Assessment of Bacterial Resistance, Beijing, China; 6Quality Management Center of China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS), Beijing, China; 7Department of Clinical Laboratory, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China; 8National Center for Clinical Laboratories, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of five commonly used automated antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) systems in China (Vitek 2, Phoenix, Microscan, TDR, and DL). Materials and methods: Two “unknown” isolates, S1 (ESBL-producing Escherichia coli) and S2 (KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae), were sent to 886 hospitals in China for identification and AST. Using broth microdilution method (BMD) as gold standard, minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined. Results: Most hospitals (392, 46.1%) used Vitek 2, followed by 16% each for Phoenix, Microscan, and DL systems, and 5.9% (50) used TDR system. MICs of 22 antimicrobials were evaluated for two study isolates plus three ATCC strains. Individual susceptibility results for three ATCC strains (n
Reference Key
menglan2018comparisoninfection Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Menglan Zhou;Yao Wang;Chang Liu;Timothy Kudinha;Xiaolin Liu;Yanping Luo;Qiwen Yang;Hongli Sun;Jihong Hu;Ying-Chun Xu and
Journal Infection and drug resistance
Year 2018
DOI
10.2147/IDR.S166790
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.