TABLE 2.
Overall performance of Ana-CIM compared to ertapenem Etest susceptibility using CLSI and EUCAST breakpointsa
| Study | Comparator | CLSI (14) |
EUCAST (15) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA | VME | ME | mE | CA | VME | ME | mE | ||
| Pilot | mCIM | 95% (19/20) | 0% (0/8) | 0% (0/12) | 5% (1/20) | 95% (19/20) | 0% (0/8) | 0% (0/12) | 5% (1/20) |
| Ana-CIM | 95% (19/20) | 0% (0/8) | 0% (0/12) | 5% (1/20) | 95% (19/20) | 0% (0/8) | 0% (0/12) | 5% (1/20) | |
| Clinical | Ana-CIM | 86% (30/35) | 0% (0/12) | 10% (2/20) | 9% (3/35) | 94% (33/35) | 17% (2/12) | 0% (0/20) | 0% (0/35) |
| Repro | Ana-CIM | 60% (3/5) | 0% (0/1) | 50% (2/4) | 0% (0/5) | 100% (5/5) | 0% (0/3) | 0% (0/2) | 0% (0/5) |
| Overall | Ana-CIM | 87% (52/60) | 0% (0/21) | 11% (4/36) | 7% (4/60) | 95% (57/60) | 7% (2/29) | 0% (0/31) | 2% (1/60) |
a
CA, categorical agreement; mE, minor error; ME, major error; VME, very major error; Repro, reproducibility.