Skip to main content
. 2001 Dec;39(12):4256–4263. doi: 10.1128/JCM.39.12.4256-4263.2001

TABLE 3.

Overall relative (within 1 dilution) agreements and 95% CI limits between the visual and spectrophotometric readings and between the NCCLS and XTT methods

Time (h) Drug Growth levela % Agreement ± 95% CI for the following comparisons:
Visual vs spectrophotometric readings
NCCLS vs XTT methods
NCCLSvis vs NCCLSspb XTTvis vs XTTspb NCCLSvis vs XTTvisb NCCLSsp vs XTTspc
24 ITC 0 51.4 ± 5.7d 90.8 ± 3.3 88.0 ± 3.7 60.0 ± 11.1e
1 92.8 ± 3.0 91.1 ± 3.3 92.7 ± 3.0 94.7 ± 5.1
2 87.7 ± 3.8 86.0 ± 4.0 86.8 ± 3.9 82.7 ± 8.6
3 67.8 ± 5.4e 75.4 ± 4.9e 79.8 ± 4.6e 73.3 ± 10.0e
4 68.1 ± 22.6d 67.9 ± 5.3 68.3 ± 5.4 73.3 ± 10.0
AMB 0 96.7 ± 2.0 99.3 ± 0.9 96.7 ± 2.0 98.7 ± 2.5
48 ITC 0 81.5 ± 4.4 95.3 ± 2.4 94.0 ± 2.7 84.0 ± 8.3
1 91.6 ± 3.1 90.9 ± 3.3 85.1 ± 4.1 77.3 ± 9.5
2 87.2 ± 3.8 83.2 ± 4.2 82.8 ± 4.3 73.3 ± 10.0
3 72.5 ± 5.1 69.5 ± 5.2 78.0 ± 4.7 54.7 ± 11.3
4 58.1 ± 5.6 67.5 ± 5.5d 69.6 ± 5.2 48.0 ± 11.3
AMB 0 98.7 ± 1.3 100.0 ± 0.0 97.0 ± 1.9 98.7 ± 2.6
a

See Table 2, footnote b

b

A total of 300 comparisons. 

c

A total of 75 comparisons. 

d

The P value (obtained by a two-way ANOVA of log2 MIC end points derived by the two methods) was <0.01. 

e

The P value was <0.05.