Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 1999, p. 1628-1631, Vol. 37, No. 5
0095-1137/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Assessment of Metronidazole Susceptibility in Helicobacter
pylori: Statistical Validation and Error Rate Analysis of
Breakpoints Determined by the Disk Diffusion Test
Sandra
Chaves,1,2
Mário
Gadanho,1,2
Rogério
Tenreiro,2,* and
José
Cabrita1,3
Laboratório de Bacteriologia, Instituto
Nacional de Saúde,1 Departamento
de Biologia Vegetal e Centro de Genética e Biologia Molecular,
Universidade de Lisboa,2 and Faculdade
de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa,3
Lisbon, Portugal
Received 23 September 1998/Returned for modification 30 November
1998/Accepted 21 January 1999
 |
ABSTRACT |
Metronidazole susceptibility of 100 Helicobacter pylori
strains was assessed by determining the inhibition zone diameters by
disk diffusion test and the MICs by agar dilution and PDM Epsilometer test (E test). Linear regression analysis was performed, allowing the
definition of significant linear relations, and revealed correlations of disk diffusion results with both E-test and agar dilution results (r2 = 0.88 and 0.81, respectively). No
significant differences (P = 0.84) were found between
MICs defined by E test and those defined by agar dilution, taken as a
standard. Reproducibility comparison between E-test and disk diffusion
tests showed that they are equivalent and with good precision. Two
interpretative susceptibility schemes (with or without an intermediate
class) were compared by an interpretative error rate analysis method.
The susceptibility classification scheme that included the intermediate
category was retained, and breakpoints were assessed for diffusion
assay with 5-µg metronidazole disks. Strains with inhibition zone
diameters less than 16 mm were defined as resistant (MIC > 8 µg/ml), those with zone diameters equal to or greater than 16 mm but
less than 21 mm were considered intermediate (4 µg/ml < MIC
8 µg/ml), and those with zone diameters of 21 mm or
greater were regarded as susceptible (MIC
4 µg/ml). Error
rate analysis applied to this classification scheme showed occurrence
frequencies of 1% for major errors and 7% for minor errors, when the
results were compared to those obtained by agar dilution. No very major
errors were detected, suggesting that disk diffusion might be a good
alternative for determining the metronidazole sensitivity of H. pylori strains.
 |
TEXT |
Helicobacter pylori is
strongly associated with some gastric pathologies, such as duodenal and
gastric ulcers, and is an important risk factor in gastric cancer
evolution (25). Treatment of infection caused by this
organism has been shown to require a combination of antibiotics, and
metronidazole is frequently used in the eradication therapies. However,
the high prevalence of resistant strains to this antimicrobial agent
can lead to therapeutic failure. Determination of strain susceptibility
to antibiotics, particularly to metronidazole, is very important
(7, 10), but there are several problems with antimicrobial
susceptibility testing of H. pylori (9, 11, 15,
16). Standardization of simple and fast test procedures that can
be applied in routine laboratories, to allow a faster identification of
resistant strains and the selection of more effective therapies, is now
a real need (6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 29). Disk diffusion
testing, since it is simple and economical, is very often used.
However, the resistance breakpoints for H. pylori are not
well defined. This is particularly evident from the different
breakpoints, ranging from 4 to >32 µg/ml, already used by several
authors (1, 7, 9, 15, 19, 22, 26, 30). The lack of
standardization of the breakpoint MIC for metronidazole can lead to the
misclassification of strains into the susceptibility interpretative
categories, with important clinical implications. The aim of this study
was the standardization of the disk diffusion method for metronidazole,
by correlating the results with MICs determined both by the agar
dilution method (which is accepted as a standard and has been used in
several studies) (17, 20) and by a quantitative gradient
diffusion test (E test) (4, 5, 14, 23, 27). Based on a
breakpoint interpretative error rate analysis (21), we
defined three susceptibility categories (susceptible, intermediate, and
resistant) and the inhibition zone diameters corresponding to them.
Bacteria and inoculum preparation.
One hundred H. pylori strains from gastric biopsy specimens were isolated on
Pylori selective medium (BioMérieux) and stored at
70°C in
brucella broth (Gibco Europe) with 25% glycerol. Frozen clinical
isolates were thawed and inoculated on Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) plates
(Oxoid) supplemented with 10% horse blood (12) and
incubated under microaerophilic conditions produced by a gas-generating system (Campylobacter system; Oxoid). For inoculum
preparation, strains were incubated in MHA plus 10% horse blood for
48 h at 37°C under microaerophilic conditions, produced as
described above. Given the importance of inoculum homogeneity (3,
12), cellular viability was controlled microscopically by
morphological observation with gram staining, in order to check the
proportions of coccoid cells in cultures (18). Cultures were
always used after 48 h of incubation, when they generally did not
present coccoid forms. Suspensions were prepared in sterile distilled
water to an opacity of 3 to 4 McFarland standard (ca. 109
CFU/ml).
Agar dilution susceptibility test.
Metronidazole (Sigma) was
dissolved in dimethylformamide (DMF) (Merck) and diluted in sterile
distilled water to produce serial log2 dilutions (ranging
from 0.125 to 64 µg/ml) in 50°C MHA supplemented with 10% horse
blood. Final concentrations of DMF were always lower than the MICs
assessed for H. pylori strains. The plates were inoculated
with 1 to 2 µl of suspensions at a 3 to 4 McFarland standard (ca.
106 CFU) by means of an automated multipoint inoculator
(Denley) and incubated for 72 h at 37°C under microaerophilic
conditions, produced as described above. An antibiotic-free control
plate was also inoculated in each assay. The MIC was defined as the lowest concentration producing no visible colonies (a slight haze of
apparent growth was ignored).
Disk diffusion and E test susceptibility methods.
Plates
containing MHA plus 10% horse blood were inoculated with a swab from
the suspension at a 3 to 4 McFarland standard. Then, a metronidazole
disk (5-µg; Oxoid) and an E-test strip, which has a built-in gradient
from high to low content of metronidazole in semi-log2
steps (E test; AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden), were placed on the same
plate for each strain. All plates were incubated for 72 h at
37°C in a microaerophilic atmosphere. Storage conditions and preuse
conditions of metronidazole disks and E-test strips were strictly in
accordance with the manufacturers' instructions.
For the disk diffusion method, the inhibition zone diameter was
measured, in millimeters, with a ruler. For the E test, MICs, corresponding to the intersection of the inhibition zone with the
strip, were read directly from the strip.
Data and statistical analysis.
Possible significant
differences between MICs defined by each method (
= 0.05) were
assessed by means of a paired t test (2). For the
average difference of MICs (
), a 95% confidence interval based on the standard error of
was also calculated (2). All
correlations (for agar dilution MICs with E-test MICs and for
inhibition zone diameters with both agar dilution MICs and E-test MICs)
were determined by regression analysis. The last two functions obtained
were linearized by logarithmic conversion of MICs. Determination
coefficients (r2) were calculated for all
regression lines. Validation of these linear models was carried out by
an F test (28). The confidence intervals (
= 0.05) for
the inhibition zone diameters, estimated from each linear function and
corresponding to the breakpoints defined, were also calculated
(2). In order to evaluate the reproducibility of the three
methods, a random sample of 14 strains was tested in three independent
assays. The average coefficient of variation (CV) (28) was
calculated for each method by using the set of values obtained with the
14 strains (n = 42). For the disk diffusion test, the
CV was calculated after translation of inhibition zone diameters into
MICs, via the corresponding regression lines, to generate numbers of
the same dimension. Confidence intervals (
= 0.05) for the average
CV associated with each method were also defined, to evaluate the
precision and reproducibility of each diffusion method (E-test strip
and metronidazole disks) by comparison with agar dilution, as the
latter is considered a reference method (28). An
interpretative error rate analysis was performed in order to
investigate the occurrence of strain misclassification when disk
diffusion breakpoints were applied.
Equivalence between agar dilution and E test and breakpoint
definition.
We obtained MICs ranging from 0.125 to >32 µg/ml by
the E test and ranging from 0.25 to 64 µg/ml by the agar dilution
method. The MICs for 11 of the 100 strains were discordant, with
discrepancies of more than ±1 log2 concentration steps
(agar dilution, standard error) but not more than ±2 log2.
No significant differences were found between MICs determined by the
agar dilution method and the E test (P = 0.84;
= 0.02 ± 0.260). A good correlation was
found between these two methods (MICE test = 1.22 MICagar dilution + 2.89; r2 = 0.73),
allowing us to use both quantitative methods as references and to
correlate results obtained with them with inhibition zone diameters for
the standardization of the disk diffusion test. Based on the
distribution of strains among the MICs obtained (Fig. 1) and breakpoint values already
described (22, 30), we defined two susceptibility
classification schemes: one with a unique breakpoint (8 µg/ml), which
separates the strains into two categories (MIC
8 µg/ml
[susceptible strains] and MIC > 8 µg/ml [resistant
strains]), and the other with two breakpoints (4 and 8 µg/ml)
resulting in three interpretative categories (MIC
4 µg/ml
[susceptible strains], 4 µg/ml < MIC
8 µg/ml
[intermediate strains], and MIC > 8 µg/ml [resistant
strains]).

View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Distribution of the 100 H. pylori strains
among the MICs obtained by agar dilution ( ) and E test ( ).
|
|
Reproducibility and precision of the methods.
In the
evaluation of methods for susceptibility testing, precision and
reproducibility are the most important criteria. Table 1 shows the average MICs obtained in
three repeat tests with 14 strains and the corresponding standard
errors for E-test and agar dilution methods. The table also shows the
inhibition zone diameter ranges obtained for each MIC with disk
diffusion method. CV determination showed that the two diffusion
techniques are equivalent (CVdisk = 26.5% ± 11.8% and
CVE test = 30% ± 11.8%). The agar dilution method, which
is considered a reference method, has a similar variation (CVagar
dilution = 30% ± 11.8%), confirming the good reproducibility
and precision of the other methods tested. Furthermore, it should be
noted that the variation associated with the agar dilution technique
can be an artifact generated by the large concentration steps of the
log2 scale, especially at the higher doses. Thus, the
variation value associated with agar dilution is probably higher than
those calculated for the two diffusion tests, reinforcing the
reliability and good reproducibility of the latter. These data are in
agreement with results for reproducibility and correlation found by
others (7, 15, 30). The consistency observed for the three
independent repeat tests, made with independent cultures, is evidence
of inoculum homogeneity, which is an issue of major importance in
antimicrobial susceptibility determination (4).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 1.
MICs defined by E-test and agar dilution methods and
inhibition zone diameter ranges for a group of 14 strains obtained
with three repeat tests
|
|
Regression analysis and correlation between methods.
After logarithmic conversion of MICs, regression analysis was applied
to our results in order to define linear functions correlating inhibition zone diameters with MICs obtained by the two quantitative methods and correlating the MICs with the inhibition zone diameters. The analytical expressions were log MIC =
0.06
+ 1.69 (r2 = 0.88), where
is the inhibition zone
diameter, for calculation of E-test MICs from inhibition zone diameters
and log MIC =
0.05
+ 1.64 (r2 = 0.81)
for calculation of agar dilution MICs from inhibition zone diameters.
The reverse equations, for estimation of inhibition zone diameters from
E-test MICs (Fig. 2A) and agar dilution
MICs (Fig. 2B), were
=
15.31 log MIC + 29.06 (r2 = 0.88) and
=
15.98 log MIC + 30.63 (r2 = 0.81), respectively. It should be
noted that the maximum concentration of metronidazole in the E-test
strip is 32 µg/ml. Thus, only 81 strains were retained, as MICs
higher than 32 µg/ml were not used in the E-test regression analysis.
The linearity of all functions (P < 0.05) was
confirmed by an F test. From each reverse regression line (Fig. 2A and
B), it was possible to estimate 95% confidence intervals for the
inhibition zone diameters corresponding to the breakpoints 4 and 8 µg/ml. From the correlation between disks and the E test we obtained
the values 20 ± 0.9 and 15 ± 0.9 mm, whereas from the
correlation between disks and agar dilution we obtained the values
21 ± 0.9 and 16 ± 0.9 mm, respectively.

View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Interpretative error rate analysis for each
susceptibility classification scheme, performed by using reverse
regressions of inhibition zone diameters with log MIC defined by E test
(A) and with log MIC defined by agar dilution method (B). Top and right
arrows indicate the ranges for the three-category scheme (susceptible
[S], intermediate [I], and resistant [R]). Left and bottom arrows
indicate the ranges for the two-category scheme (S and R).
Interpretative errors are displayed ( , major error; , minor
error; and ×, major or minor error when the two-category or three
category scheme is applied).
|
|
Interpretative error rate analysis.
Given our
susceptibility classification model, when just one breakpoint is
applied (8 µg/ml), allowing the classification of strains into two
categories (susceptible and resistant strains), two types of error may
occur. A very major error is assumed to be present when the strain is
classified as resistant by the reference method and as susceptible by
the method tested, and a major error is deemed present when the
opposite happens. When the third susceptibility category is defined
(classifying strains as intermediate, with breakpoints between 4 and 8 µg/ml), a minor error is considered to be present when strains are
(i) classified as intermediate or resistant by the reference method
and, respectively, as susceptible or intermediate by the method tested
or (ii) classified as intermediate or susceptible by the reference
method and, respectively, as resistant or intermediate by the method
tested. The results obtained by performing this analysis are shown in
Table 2 and Fig. 2. A higher frequency of
interpretative errors for disk diffusion was observed with agar
dilution as the reference method than with E test. However, no very
major errors were found for disk diffusion when these quantitative
methods were each used as reference, pointing to a high consistency of
susceptibility classification (as well as MIC determinations) obtained
by all methods.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 2.
Frequencies of interpretative errors, obtained by
comparison with disk diffusion method, for the two susceptibility
classification schemes applied to 100 H. pylori strains
|
|
Validation of metronidazole disk diffusion test.
In a
susceptibility classification scheme, the existence of an intermediate
category is particularly important, since it acts as a buffer zone to
prevent the misclassification of resistant strains as susceptible and
susceptible strains as resistant (very major and major errors)
(24). When the scheme with the intermediate class was used,
the occurrence of major errors was reduced, emphasizing the advantage
of the three-category scheme.
Agar dilution has been accepted as the reference method (17,
20). However, in our study, the E test showed a higher
correlation with the disk diffusion test (r2 = 0.88) than did agar dilution (r2 = 0.81).
This was also evident from the interpretative error rate analysis, as
agar dilution showed a higher frequency of errors (major and minor)
(Table 2). As previously stated, this could be due to the larger
antibiotic concentration steps used in agar dilution (log2)
than on the E-test strip (semi-log2) and also to the
common property of diffusion of E-test and disk methods.
The inhibition zone diameters for metronidazole breakpoints (4 and 8 µg/ml), estimated from regression lines with both methods, are not
significantly different, as the confidence intervals overlapped. This
fact, associated with the overall agreement of susceptibility classification of strains by the other two methods, points to a level
of accuracy of the disk agar diffusion method that makes it suitable as
an alternative method. The range of MICs used and the statistical
significance of the fittings are in good support of the linearity
between methods and make the proposed equations important and useful
tools to translate susceptibility data among these three methods.
Although schemes based on a unique breakpoint classification (8 µg/ml) have been proposed (22, 19), the interpretative
error rate analysis performed in our study is more compatible with a
classification scheme including the intermediate category. Thus,
strains for which the MIC is
4 µg/ml should be considered
susceptible, those for which the MIC is >4 µg/ml and
8
µg/ml should be regarded as intermediate, and those for which the
MIC is >8 µg/ml should be deemed resistant. Average inhibition zone diameters of 20.5 and 15.5 mm were calculated for the respective breakpoints 4 and 8 µg/ml, by combining the diameters obtained when
each quantitative method was used as a reference. For practical reasons, we propose that the diameters 21 and 16 mm be adopted. Thus,
when the disk diffusion test is applied with 5-µg metronidazole disks, a strain with an inhibition zone diameter less than 16 mm shall
be considered resistant, when the diameter is equal to or higher than
21 mm it shall be considered susceptible, and when the value obtained
is between 21 mm and 16 mm, the strain shall be considered
intermediate. Xia et al. (30) proposed the same interpretative susceptibility classification scheme but with inhibition zone diameters of 26 and 20 mm, values that are not included in the
confidence intervals for the disk breakpoints calculated in the present
study. The discrepancies between disk breakpoint values may be
explained by the lower determination coefficient
(r2 = 0.59) of the regression analysis
performed by those authors compared to those obtained in our study
(r2 = 0.81 and r2 = 0.88).
The implications of H. pylori antimicrobial resistance
to metronidazole are well known. Therapies in patients infected with resistant strains are likely to fail and subsequent treatment will be
more difficult (7, 10). Routine testing of H. pylori sensitivities to this antimicrobial agent will allow the
use of alternative treatments. Agar dilution is a laborious and
time-consuming method, and the E test has the drawback of being costly.
The disk diffusion test is a simple and economical method, suitable for testing single isolates and for differentiating resistant
subpopulations in any routine laboratory (8). Although it
has not been recommended for bacterial species requiring long
incubation periods, because of the pattern of antibiotic release from
the disk (4, 13), this method is reliable when the
procedures are standardized (7, 15). Our study strongly
suggests that the good reproducibility, precision, and accuracy of the
disk diffusion method potentially make it a good alternative for
determining antibiotic susceptibility of H. pylori,
particularly to metronidazole. Furthermore, the routine implementation
of this method may help to define more efficient eradication therapies.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Departamento de
Biologia Vegetal, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de
Lisboa, Rua Ernesto Vasconcelos, Edificio C2, piso 4, Campo Grande
P-1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal. Phone: 351-1-7573141. Fax: 351-1-7500048. E-mail: rpat{at}fc.ul.pt.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Alarcón, T.,
D. Domingo, and M. López-Brea.
1998.
Discrepancies between E-test and agar dilution methods for testing metronidazole susceptibility of Helicobacter pylori.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
36:1165-1166[Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Armitage, P., and G. Berry.
1990.
Statistical methods in medical research, 2nd ed.
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, United Kingdom.
|
| 3.
|
Berger, S. A.,
A. Gorea,
M. Moskowitz,
M. Santo, and T. Gilat.
1993.
Effect of inoculum size on antimicrobial susceptibility of Helicobacter pylori.
Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.
12:782-783[Medline].
|
| 4.
|
Brown, D. J., and L. Brown.
1991.
Evaluation of the E-test, a novel method of quantifying antimicrobial activity.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
27:183-190.
|
| 5.
|
Cederbrant, G.,
G. Kahlmeter, and A. Ljungh.
1993.
The E test for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
31:65-71[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 6.
|
De Boer, W. A., and N. J. Tytgat.
1996.
How to treat Helicobacter pylori infection should treatment strategies be based on testing bacterial susceptibility? A personal viewpoint.
Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.
8:709-716[Medline].
|
| 7.
|
DeCross, A. J.,
B. J. Marshall,
R. W. McCallum,
S. R. Hoffman,
L. J. Barrett, and R. L. Guerrant.
1993.
Metronidazole susceptibility testing for Helicobacter pylori: comparison of disk, broth, and agar dilution methods and their clinical relevance.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
31:1971-1974[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 8.
|
Glupczynski, G. Y.
1993.
Contribution to the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori. Ph.D. thesis.
University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
|
| 9.
|
Glupczynski, Y.,
M. Labbé,
W. Hansen,
F. Crokaert, and E. Yourassowsky.
1991.
Evaluation of the E test for quantitative antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
29:2072-2075[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 10.
|
Goddard, A. F., and R. P. Logan.
1996.
Antimicrobial resistance and Helicobacter pylori.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
37:639-643[Free Full Text].
|
| 11.
|
Hachem, C. Y.,
J. E. Clarridge,
R. Reddy,
R. Flamm,
D. G. Evans,
S. K. Tanaka, and D. Y. Graham.
1996.
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori. Comparison of E-test, broth microdilution, and disk diffusion for ampicillin, clarithromycin, and metronidazole.
Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.
24:37-41[Medline].
|
| 12.
|
Hartzen, S. H.,
L. P. Andersen,
A. Bremmelgaard,
H. Colding,
M. Arpi,
J. Kristiansen,
T. Justesen,
F. Espersen,
N. Frimodt-Møller, and O. Bonnevie.
1997.
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 230 Helicobacter pylori strains: importance of medium, inoculum, and incubation time.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
41:2634-2639[Abstract].
|
| 13.
|
Henriksen, T. H.,
O. Brorson,
R. Schoyen, and T. Thoresen.
1996.
Risks of lack of standardization of tests to detect in vitro metronidazole resistance in Helicobacter pylori.
Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.
15:484-488[Medline].
|
| 14.
|
Henriksen, T. H.,
O. Brorson,
T. Schoyen, and A. Lia.
1997.
A simple method for determining metronidazole resistance of Helicobacter pylori.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
35:1424-1426[Abstract].
|
| 15.
|
Hirschi, M. A.,
M. M. Hirschi, and M. L. Rotter.
1993.
Comparison of three methods for determination of the sensitivity of Helicobacter pylori to metronidazole.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
32:45-49[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 16.
|
Knapp, C. C.,
M. D. Ludwig, and J. A. Washington.
1991.
In vitro activity of metronidazole against Helicobacter pylori as determined by agar dilution and agar diffusion.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
35:1230-1231[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 17.
|
Lambert, T.,
F. Mégraud,
G. Gerbaud, and P. Courvalin.
1986.
Susceptibility of Campylobacter pyloridis to 20 antimicrobial agents.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
30:510-511[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 18.
|
Lee, A.
1996.
Les hélicobacters: bactériologie, ecologie, p. 58-61.
In
F. Mégraud, and H. Lamouliatte (ed.), Helicobacter pylori. Elsevier, Paris, France.
|
| 19.
|
Loo, V. G.,
C. A. Fallone,
E. De Souza,
J. Lavallee, and A. N. Barkun.
1997.
In vitro susceptibility of Helicobacter pylori to ampicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole and omeprazole.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
40:881-883[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 20.
|
McNulty, C. M. A.,
J. Dent, and R. Wise.
1985.
Susceptibility of clinical isolates of Campylobacter pyloridis to 11 antimicrobial agents.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
28:837-838[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 21.
|
Metzler, C. M., and R. M. DeHaan.
1974.
Susceptibility tests of anaerobic bacteria: statistical and clinical considerations.
J. Infect. Dis.
130:588-594[Medline].
|
| 22.
|
Midolo, P. D.,
J. Turnidge,
J. R. Lambert, and J. M. Bell.
1995.
Validation of a modified Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method for metronidazole susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori.
Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.
21:135-140[Medline].
|
| 23.
|
Midolo, P. D.,
J. M. Bell,
J. R. Lambert,
J. D. Turnidge, and M. L. Grayson.
1997.
Antimicrobial resistance testing of Helicobacter pylori: a comparison of E test and disk diffusion methods.
Pathology
29:411-414[Medline].
|
| 24.
|
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards.
1995.
Approved standard M7-A3. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility test for bacteria that grow aerobically.
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
|
| 25.
|
Nomura, A.,
G. N. Stemmerman,
R. H. Chyou,
I. Kato,
G. L. Pérez-Pérez, and M. J. Blaser.
1991.
Helicobacter pylori infection and gastric carcinoma in a population of Japanese-Americans in Hawaii.
N. Engl. J. Med.
325:1132-1136[Abstract].
|
| 26.
|
Piccolomini, R.,
G. D. Bonaventura,
G. Catamo,
F. Carbone, and M. Neri.
1997.
Comparative evaluation of the E test, agar dilution, and broth microdilution for testing susceptibilities of Helicobacter pylori strains to 20 antimicrobial agents.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
35:1842-1846[Abstract].
|
| 27.
|
Recklinghausen, G. V., and R. Ansorg.
1995.
Metronidazole susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori with the PDM Epsilometer test (E test).
Int. J. Med. Microbiol. Virol. Parasitol. Infect. Dis.
282:83-85.
|
| 28.
|
Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf.
1995.
Biometry, 3rd ed.
W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, N.Y.
|
| 29.
|
Weiss, K.,
M. Laverdiere, and C. Restieri.
1998.
Comparison of activity of 10 antibiotics against clinical strains of Helicobacter pylori by three different techniques.
Can. J. Gastroenterol.
12:181-185[Medline].
|
| 30.
|
Xia, H.,
C. T. Keane,
S. Beattie, and C. A. O'Morain.
1994.
Standardization of disk diffusion test and its clinical significance for susceptibility testing of metronidazole against Helicobacter pylori.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
38:2357-2361[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 1999, p. 1628-1631, Vol. 37, No. 5
0095-1137/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Falsafi, T., Mobasheri, F., Nariman, F., Najafi, M.
(2004). Susceptibilities to Different Antibiotics of Helicobacter pylori Strains Isolated from Patients at the Pediatric Medical Center of Tehran, Iran. J. Clin. Microbiol.
42: 387-389
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Best, L. M., Haldane, D. J. M., Keelan, M., Taylor, D. E., Thomson, A. B. R., Loo, V., Fallone, C. A., Lyn, P., Smaill, F. M., Hunt, R., Gaudreau, C., Kennedy, J., Alfa, M., Pelletier, R., Veldhuyzen van Zanten, S. J. O.
(2003). Multilaboratory Comparison of Proficiencies in Susceptibility Testing of Helicobacter pylori and Correlation between Agar Dilution and E Test Methods. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
47: 3138-3144
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
McNulty, C., and the PHLS Helicobacter Working Group:, , Owen, R., Tompkins, D., Hawtin, P., McColl, K., Price, A., Smith, G., Teare, L.
(2002). Helicobacter pylori susceptibility testing by disc diffusion. J Antimicrob Chemother
49: 601-609
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Warburton-Timms, V J, McNulty, C A M
(2001). Role of screening agar plates for in vitro susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori in a routine laboratory setting. J. Clin. Pathol.
54: 408-411
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
BOYANOVA, L., STANCHEVA, I., SPASSOVA, Z., KATZAROV, N., MITOV, I., KOUMANOVA, R.
(2000). Primary and combined resistance to four antimicrobial agents in Helicobacter pylori in Sofia, Bulgaria. J Med Microbiol
49: 415-418
[Abstract]
[Full Text]