...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Comparison of visual and spectrophotometric methods of MIC endpoint determinations by using broth microdilution methods to test five antifungal agents, including the new triazole D0870.
【24h】

Comparison of visual and spectrophotometric methods of MIC endpoint determinations by using broth microdilution methods to test five antifungal agents, including the new triazole D0870.

机译：使用肉汤微稀释法测试五种抗真菌药，包括新型三唑D0870的视觉和分光光度法测定MIC终点的比较。

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

A study to compare three different methods for reading MIC endpoints tested by the broth microdilution modification of the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (Villanova, Pa.) reference method was conducted. MICs of amphotericin B, flucytosine, fluconazole, itraconazole, and a new triazole, D0870, were determined for five reference yeast strains and 100 clinical isolates of Candida spp. MICs were read visually according to National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards guidelines from microdilution trays that had been (VS) and had not been (V) shaken. MICs were also determined spectrophotometrically (SP) at 492 nm. SP endpoints were determined as the concentrations resulting in a > or = 50% inhibition of growth (flucytosine and azoles) and a > or = 90% inhibition of growth (amphotericin B) relative to control growth. The five reference strains were tested nine times each against all five antifungal agents, and the MIC results for each reading method were compared with a 3-log2 dilution reference range determined by the macrodilution (M27-P) method. Overall, 84 to 100% of the MICs determined by V, 93 to 100% of those determined by VS, and 89 to 100% of those determined by SP fell within the 3-log2 dilution reference range for each reference strain and antifungal agent. Reproducibility was 99% for V and SP and 98% for VS. Agreement among the three methods of reading ranged from 97 to 99%. Excellent agreement among reading methods was also observed for all antifungal agents when tested against 100 clinical isolates. Agreement between the standard V method (no agitation) and VS ranged from 99 to 100%, and that between V and SP ranged from 89 to 99%. The VS and SP reading methods provided more definitive endpoints than the V method, which does not involve shaking.
机译：进行了一项研究，以比较三种不同的读取MIC终点的方法，这些方法是通过美国国家临床实验室标准委员会（Villanova，PA）的肉汤微稀释法修改法测试的。确定了五种参考酵母菌株和100株念珠菌临床分离株的两性霉素B，氟胞嘧啶，氟康唑，伊曲康唑和新的三唑D0870的MIC。根据国家临床实验室标准委员会的指南，从已（VS）和未（V）摇动的微稀释盘中目测读取MIC。还通过分光光度法（SP）在492 nm下确定MIC。 SP终点被确定为相对于对照生长导致≥50％抑制生长（氟胞嘧啶和唑类）和≥90％抑制生长（amphotericin B）的浓度。对这五种参考菌株分别针对所有五种抗真菌剂进行了九次测试，并将每种读数方法的MIC结果与通过大稀释法（M27-P）确定的3-log2稀释参考范围进行了比较。总体而言，对于每种参考菌株和抗真菌剂，由V确定的MIC的84％至100％，由VS确定的MIC的93％至100％，由SP确定的MIC的89％至100％均落在3-log2稀释参考范围内。 V和SP的重现性为99％，VS的重现性为98％。三种阅读方法之间的一致性介于97％至99％之间。当针对100种临床分离株进行测试时，所有抗真菌剂的阅读方法之间也观察到了极好的一致性。标准V方法（无搅拌）与VS之间的一致性介于99％至100％之间，而V与SP之间的一致性介于89％至99％之间。 VS和SP读取方法提供了比V方法更多的确定性终点，而V方法不涉及摇动。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号