JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Blanc, D S
Right arrow Articles by Francioli, P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Blanc, D S
Right arrow Articles by Francioli, P

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1994 October; 32(10): 2505-2509

Quantitative antibiogram typing using inhibition zone diameters compared with ribotyping for epidemiological typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

D S Blanc, C Lugeon, A Wenger, H H Siegrist and P Francioli

Division Autonome de Médecine Préventive Hospitalière, Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne.

ABSTRACT

Antibiogram typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with selected antibiotics was evaluated as a primary epidemiological typing tool and compared with ribotyping. Antibiograms were derived with the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method by using erythromycin, clindamycin, cotrimoxazole, gentamicin, and ciprofloxacin. For typing, antibiogram data were analyzed by similarity analysis of disk zone diameters (quantitative antibiogram typing). One hundred seventy-two isolates were typed. Reproducibility reached 98% for the quantitative antibiogram and 100% for ribotyping. With three selected restriction enzymes (EcoRV, HindIII, and KpnI), 40 epidemiologically unrelated isolates could be classified into 21 ribotypes, whereas quantitative antibiogram typing classified these isolates into 19 groups. To evaluate the discriminatory power of the methods, we calculated an index of discrimination from data obtained with these 40 isolates. This index takes into consideration both the number of types defined by the typing method and their relative frequencies. With both ribotyping and quantitative antibiogram typing, high discrimination indices (0.972 and 0.954, respectively) were obtained. When epidemiological links between patients (ward, period of hospitalization, and contacts between staff and patients) were compared with the results of ribotyping or the quantitative antibiogram typing method, it appeared that both methods were able to discriminate epidemiological clusters, with only a few discrepancies. In conclusion, quantitative antibiogram typing, although not necessarily based on genomic markers, is a simple method which enables a reliable workup of methicillin-resistant S. aureus epidemic when sophisticated molecular typing methods are not available.

J Clin Microbiol. 1994 October; 32(10): 2505-2509




This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1994 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.