Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T18:30:15.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliability of Disc Diffusion Susceptibility Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Patrick R. Murray,
Jacquelyn R. Zeitinger and
Donald J. Krogstad
Patrick R. Murray*
Affiliation:
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Departments of Pathology and Medicine, Barnes Hospital and the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
Jacquelyn R. Zeitinger
Affiliation:
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Departments of Pathology and Medicine, Barnes Hospital and the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
Donald J. Krogstad
Affiliation:
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Departments of Pathology and Medicine, Barnes Hospital and the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
*
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Barnes Hospital, St. Louis, MO 63110
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We retested 2,181 bacteria-antibiotic combinations with the Kirby-Bauer disc-diffusion technique and found interpretive changes with 120 (5.5%). Most changes (101 of 120) were single steps (i.e. from R to I, I to R or S, or S to I). Of the 19 remaining, 10 of them were from R to Sand nine from S to R. These changes were significantly more frequent for combinations with zone diameters clustered near interpretive breakpoints (within 2mm) than for other combinations, and there was a linear relationship between decreased reproducibility and increased clustering near interpretive breakpoints.

Based on an analysis of all susceptibility testing results performed in 1978, combinations most commonly clustered near interpretive breakpoints included: Ampicillin with Klebsiella pneumoniae; erythromycin with enterococci; chloramphenicol with Serratia marcescens; gentamicin with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and enterocci; and tetracycline with Enterobacter spp., Escherichia coli, and K. pneumoniae.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , June 1982, pp. 230 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Bartlett, RC, et al. The microbiology laboratory: Its role in surveillance, investigation, and control.In: Hospital Infections. Bennett, JV, Brachman, PS. eds. Boston: Little, Brown, 1979, pp. 147–168.Google Scholar
2. Knowles, RC, Moore, TD. Quality control of agar diffusion susceptibility tests — data from the quality assurance service microbiology program of the College of American Pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol 1979;72:365–370.Google Scholar
3. Bauer, AW, et al. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disc method. Am J Clin Pathol 1966:36:493-196.Google Scholar
4. Barry, AL, et al. Inter- and intra-laboratory variability in antibiotic susceptibility tests with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Entero-bacteriaceae . J Infect Dis 1976;134:328–335.Google Scholar
5. D'Amato, RF, Thornsberry, C. Calcium and magnesium in Mueller-Hinton agar and their influence on disc diffusion susceptibility test results. Curr Microbiol 1979;2:135–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Ericsson, HM, Sherris, JC. Antibiotic sensitivity testing — report of an international collaborative study. Acta Pathol Microbiol Srand (B) Suppl 1972;217:1–90.Google Scholar
7. Minshew, BH, et al. Emergence in a burn center of populations of bacteria resistant to gentamicin, tobramycin, and amikacin: Evidence for the need for changes in zone diameter interpretive standards. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1977:12:688–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Pollock, HM, et al. Effect of different lois of Mueller-Hin ton agar on the interpretation of the gentamicin susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1978;14:360–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Woolfrey, BF, Ramadei, WA, Quail, C. Petri dish concavity — a potential source of error in antibiotic assay and agar diffusion antibiotic susceptibility tests. Am J Clin Pathol 1979;71:433–436.Google Scholar
10. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests. Villanova, Pennsylvania: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, 1975, p 11.Google Scholar
11. Schor, S.S. Fundamentals of Biostatistics. New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1968, p. 1976.Google Scholar
12. Grizzle, JE, Starmer, CF. Koch, GG. Analysis of categorical data by linear models. Biometrics 1969;25:489–504.Google Scholar
13. Balows, A, Hall, CT, Gavan. Standardization and quality control of disc susceptibility testing in the United Stales. Bondi, A, In: The Clinical Laboratory as an Aid in Chemotherapy of Infectious Disease. Bondi, A, Bartola, JT, and Prier, JE, eds. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1977, pp. 29–43.Google Scholar