. 2016 Feb 26;11(2):e0150218. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150218

Table 2. MICs and EAs of the E-test and Sensititre methods compared with those of the CLSI and EUCAST methods.

Isolates (No.)	Method	Anidulafungin (μg/ml)				Caspofungin (μg/ml)				Micafungin (μg/ml)
		MIC range	MIC_50/90	% EA, with respect to EUCST CLSI		MIC range	MIC_50/90	% EA, with respect to EUCST CLSI		MIC range	MIC_50/90	% EA, with respect to EUCST CLSI
*C. parapsilosis* (136)**	EUCAST	0.5–2	2/2			1–2	2/2			0.12–2	2/2
	CLSI	0.5–2	1/2			0.25–4	2/2			0.008–2	1/2
	E-test	0.25–4	1/2	95.6	99.3	0.25–4	1/2	98.5	98.5	0.008–2	0.5/1	93.4	96.3
	Sensititre	0.25–2	1/2	97.8	100	0.25–2	0.5/1	88.2	89	0.015–2	1/1	96.3	98.5
*C. orthopsilosis* (27)**	EUCAST	1–2	2/2			1–2	2/2			1–2	2/2
	CLSI	0.5–2	1/2			0.25–2	1/2			0.008–2	0.5/2
	E-test	0.06–4	1/2	92.6	96.3	0.25–2	0.5/1	96.3	100	0.25–2	0.25/1	63.0	92.6
	Sensititre	0.12–2	0.5/2	92.6	92.6	0.25–1	0.5/1	77.8	81.5	0.25–2	0.5/2	66.7	88.9

CLSI, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; EUCAST, European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration; EA, essential agreement