Skip to main content

Some NLM-NCBI services and products are experiencing heavy traffic, which may affect performance and availability. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience. For assistance, please contact our Help Desk at info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1992 Jan;30(1):214–215. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.1.214-215.1992

Comparison of the E test and microdilution for detection of beta-lactam-resistant mutants that are stably derepressed for type I beta-lactamase.

C C Knapp 1, J A Washington 1
PMCID: PMC265023  PMID: 1734054

Abstract

The activities of cefotaxime, ceftazidime, piperacillin, and aztreonam were compared in the E test and broth microdilution test against 30 gram-negative bacterial mutants derepressed for type I beta-lactamases. The results demonstrated complete agreement between 24-h MICs of 80 to 83% and essential agreement between 24-h MICs of 90 to 97%. When sufficient growth was present for the E test to be read at 6 h, the essential agreement between 6- and 24-h E-test MICs was 100% for ceftazidime, piperacillin, and aztreonam and 85% for cefotaxime.

Full text

PDF
214

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baker C. N., Stocker S. A., Culver D. H., Thornsberry C. Comparison of the E Test to agar dilution, broth microdilution, and agar diffusion susceptibility testing techniques by using a special challenge set of bacteria. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Mar;29(3):533–538. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.3.533-538.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown D. F., Brown L. Evaluation of the E test, a novel method of quantifying antimicrobial activity. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991 Feb;27(2):185–190. doi: 10.1093/jac/27.2.185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Findell C. M., Sherris J. C. Susceptibility of Enterobacter to cefamandole: evidence for a high mutation rate to resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Jun;9(6):970–974. doi: 10.1128/aac.9.6.970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Jorgensen J. H., Howell A. W., Maher L. A. Quantitative antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae by using the E-test. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Jan;29(1):109–114. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.1.109-114.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kiehlbauch J., Kendle J. M., Carlson L. G., Schoenknecht F. D., Plorde J. J. Automated antibiotic susceptibility testing: comparative evaluation of four commercial systems and present state. Clin Lab Med. 1989 Jun;9(2):319–340. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lampe M. F., Minshew B. H., Sherris J. C. In vitro response of Enterobacter to ampicillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1979 Oct;16(4):458–462. doi: 10.1128/aac.16.4.458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Washington J. A., 2nd, Knapp C. C., Sanders C. C. Accuracy of microdilution and the AutoMicrobic System in detection of beta-lactam resistance in gram-negative bacterial mutants with derepressed beta-lactamase. Rev Infect Dis. 1988 Jul-Aug;10(4):824–829. doi: 10.1093/clinids/10.4.824. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES