Skip to main content
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1989 Jun;27(6):1409–1410. doi: 10.1128/jcm.27.6.1409-1410.1989

Comparison of the agar dilution, tube dilution, and broth microdilution susceptibility tests for determination of teicoplanin MICs.

M T Kenny 1, J K Dulworth 1, M A Brackman 1
PMCID: PMC267573  PMID: 2526821

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards agar dilution, tube dilution, and broth microdilution susceptibility tests for the measurement of teicoplanin MICs. The three standardized tests gave equivalent (within a twofold dilution) results with 98.8 to 99.0% of the 508 gram-positive clinical isolates tested, indicating that either method may be used for teicoplanin MIC determination.

Full text

PDF
1410

Selected References

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

  1. Barry A. L., Jones R. N., Gavan T. L., Thornsberry C. Quality control limits for teicoplanin susceptibility tests and confirmation of disk diffusion interpretive criteria. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Sep;25(9):1812–1814. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.9.1812-1814.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fernández-Roblas R., Prieto S., Santamaría M., Ponte C., Soriano F. Activity of nine antimicrobial agents against Corynebacterium group D2 strains isolated from clinical specimens and skin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987 May;31(5):821–822. doi: 10.1128/aac.31.5.821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Jadeja L., Fainstein V., LeBlanc B., Bodey G. P. Comparative in vitro activities of teichomycin and other antibiotics against JK diphtheroids. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Aug;24(2):145–146. doi: 10.1128/aac.24.2.145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Neu H. C., Labthavikul P. In vitro activity of teichomycin compared with those of other antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Sep;24(3):425–428. doi: 10.1128/aac.24.3.425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Newsom S. W., Matthews J., Rampling A. M. Susceptibility of Clostridium difficile strains to new antibiotics: quinolones, efrotomycin, teicoplanin and imipenem. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1985 May;15(5):648–649. doi: 10.1093/jac/15.5.648-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Verbist L., Tjandramaga B., Hendrickx B., Van Hecken A., Van Melle P., Verbesselt R., Verhaegen J., De Schepper P. J. In vitro activity and human pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984 Dec;26(6):881–886. doi: 10.1128/aac.26.6.881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Watanakunakorn C. In-vitro activity of teicoplanin alone and in combination with rifampicin, gentamicin or tobramycin against coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1987 Apr;19(4):439–443. doi: 10.1093/jac/19.4.439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES