Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Sep 14.
Published in final edited form as: ACS Infect Dis. 2018 Jul 30;4(9):1377–1384. doi: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.8b00104

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Comparative analysis of our assay with the gold standard E-test. (A) EC80 values of our assay are plotted against the MIC values of E-test to evaluate the essential agreement of our assay. The diagonal of the plot represents 100% agreement between EC80 and the E-test MIC. The region between dash lines is ± one two-fold dilution of variation from the diagonal of the plot, indicating essential agreement between EC80 and MIC. The data points outside the range of essential agreement are marked in red. Our assay’s essential agreement of with E-test is 85.7%. (B) Categorical antimicrobial susceptibility R (Resistant), I (Intermediate), or S (Susceptible) was determined using the CLSI reference. Our assay’s categorical interpretation is plotted against E-test’s interpretation. The green boxes in the diagonal of the plot indicate 100% category agreement between EC80 and MIC. Minor discrepancy is defined if E-test result is R or S and our EC80 result is I, or the E-test result is I and our EC80 result is R or S. Major discrepancy is defined if the E-test result is S and our EC80 result is R; very major discrepancy is defined if E-test result is R and our EC80 result is S. Only 4.8% of minor discrepancy (3 out of 21 strain/antimicrobial combinations) and no major or very major discrepancies were observed.