Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jun 14.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Aug 15;51(4):371–378. doi: 10.1086/655127

Table 2. Comparison of Resistance Profiles, as Predicted by Different Susceptibility Tests.

Characteristic No. (%) of isolates Pa
MBBacTa Proportiona MODSa MODS vs MBBact MODS vs proportion MBBact vs proportion
Total tested for drug resistance 91 (100) 93 (100) 91 (100)
Fully susceptible isolates 67 (73.6) 78 (83.9) 78 (85.7)
Any resistance 24 (26.4) 15 (16.1) 13 (14.3) .002 NS .007
 Any rifampicin 9 (9.9) 10 (10.8) 8 (8.8) NS NS NS
 Any isoniazid 18 (19.8) 12 (12.9) 10 (11.0) .008 NS .034
 Any ethambutol 15 (16.5) 3 (3.2) 5 (5.5) .003 .083 <.001
Multidrug resistance 9 (9.9) 7 (7.5) 6 (6.6) NS NS NS
 Only rifampicin and isoniazid 2 (2.2) 4 (4.3) 3 (3.3) NS NS NS
 Rifampicin, isoniazid, and ethambutol 7 (7.7) 3 (3.2) 3 (3.3) .083 NS .046

NOTE. Data are no. (%) of the isolates tested for resistance, unless otherwise indicated. MODS, microscopic observation drug susceptibility; NS, nonsignificant.

a

The MBBacT drug susceptibility test was not performed for 2 patients; the MODS drug susceptibility test was not performed for 2 different patients.

b

P values were obtained from the McNemar test of marginal homogeneity. P values >.10 are denoted as NS.