Table 5.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing results for Enterobacteriaceae when compared to the reference method, disk diffusion

Antimicrobial agent		Categorical agreementa	Minor errors	Major errors	Very major errors
Amikacin
A	Vitek 2	49 (100)	0	0	0
	SW1.0	49 (100)	0	0	0
B	Vitek 2	19 (100)	0	0	0
	SW1.2	19 (100)	0	0	0
Ertapenem
A	Vitek 2	49 (100)	0	0	0
	SW1.0	49 (100)	0	0	0
B	Vitek 2	19 (100)	0	0	0
	SW1.2	19 (100)	0	0	0
Ciprofloxacin
A	Vitek 2	49 (100)	0	0	0
	SW1.0	48 (98)	0	1 (2)	0
B	Vitek 2	18 (95)	1 (5)	0	0
	SW1.2	19 (100)	0	0	0
Ceftazidime
A	Vitek 2	45 (92)b	3 (6)	0	1 (2)
	SW1.0	2 (4)	37 (76)	10 (20)	0
B	Vitek 2	19 (100)	0	0	0
	SW1.2	19 (100)c	0	0	0
Gentamicin
A	Vitek 2	49 (100)	0	0	0
	SW1.0	47 (96)	2 (4)	0	0
B	Vitek 2	19 (100)	0	0	0
	SW1.2	19 (100)	0	0	0
Meropenem
A	Vitek 2	49 (100)	0	0	0
	SW1.0	48 (98)	1 (2)	0	0
B	Vitek 2	19 (100)	0	0	0
	SW1.2	19 (100)	0	0	0
Piperacillin-tazobactam
A	Vitek 2	46 (94)	2 (4)	0	1 (2)
	SW1.0	42 (86)	3 (6)	3 (6)	1 (2)
B	Vitek 2	19 (100)	0	0	0
	SW1.2	18 (95)	1 (5)	0	0

^aIn comparison to reference method (disk diffusion)

^bSW1.0 versus Vitek 2, Fisher’s exact test, P < 0.0001

^cSW1.0 versus SW1.2, Fisher’s exact test, P < 0.0001