Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotheraphy
    • Applied and Environmental Mircobiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotheraphy
    • Applied and Environmental Mircobiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Research Article

Discordant results between the broth disk elution and broth microdilution susceptibility tests with Bacteroides fragilis group isolates.

K E Aldridge, A Henderberg, D D Schiro, C V Sanders
K E Aldridge
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A Henderberg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D D Schiro
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C V Sanders
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Susceptibility testing of 161 clinical isolates of the Bacteroides fragilis group was performed to compare interpretive results generated by the broth disk elution and broth microdilution methods recommended by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Among the cephalosporin-cephamycin compounds tested, correlation was poorest for ceftizoxime (71%), ceftriaxone (57%), and cefotaxime (47%); when the tests did not correlate, false resistance was seen 92, 95, and 93% of the time, respectively. Cefotetan and cefoperazone showed lack of correlation in 19 and 20% of the tests, respectively. For cefotetan, false resistance was more frequent, while with cefoperazone, false susceptibility occurred more often. Cefoxitin produced the fewest discrepancies; 10% of the disk elution tests produced either false-resistance or false-susceptibility results. Mezlocillin and piperacillin showed lack of correlation in 8 and 14% of the tests, respectively, and discrepancies were due primarily to false-resistance results. Overall with the beta-lactams, 84% of the discordant interpretive results were false resistance by the broth disk elution test. Clindamycin had a discrepancy rate of 10%, with the majority of discrepancies being false susceptibility disk elution results. Because of the high number of discrepancies noted with ceftizoxime, ceftriaxone, and cefotaxime, we recommend that these drugs not be tested by the disk elution method and that they be tested by a quantitative MIC method such as the broth microdilution test. Furthermore, caution should be exercised when interpreting broth disk elution results with all the beta-lactams included in this study except imipenem. These data indicate the lack of correlation of results between these two tests for many beta-lactams and suggest the need for a reexamination of the disk elution method to provide a more accurately standardized test.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Discordant results between the broth disk elution and broth microdilution susceptibility tests with Bacteroides fragilis group isolates.
K E Aldridge, A Henderberg, D D Schiro, C V Sanders
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Feb 1990, 28 (2) 375-378; DOI:

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Discordant results between the broth disk elution and broth microdilution susceptibility tests with Bacteroides fragilis group isolates.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
Share
Discordant results between the broth disk elution and broth microdilution susceptibility tests with Bacteroides fragilis group isolates.
K E Aldridge, A Henderberg, D D Schiro, C V Sanders
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Feb 1990, 28 (2) 375-378; DOI:
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X