Table 1

Comparison of BMD with the automated systems and Etest MIC results

Consensus log2 MICs per BMD methodSusceptibility testing system (no. tested)No. (%) of isolates with a log2 dilution variationa (compared to the reference BMD) of:
−2−10+1+2
0.25 < MIC < 8MicroScan prompt (210)72 (34.3)131 (62.4)7 (3.3)
MicroScan turbidity (207)4 (1.9)128 (61.8)75 (36.2)
Phoenix (210)56 (26.7)139 (66.2)15 (7.1)
Vitek 2 (210)2 (1.0)68 (32.3)114 (54.3)26 (12.4)
Etest (210)77 (36.7)126 (60.0)7 (3.3)
MIC = 0.5MicroScan prompt (52)8 (15.4)37 (71.1)7 (13.5)
MicroScan turbidity (51)15 (29.4)36 (70.6)
Phoenix (52)44 (84.6)8 (15.4)
Vitek 2 (52)38 (73.1)14 (26.9)
Etest (210)9 (17.3)37 (71.1)6 (11.6)
MIC = 1MicroScan prompt (120)31 (25.8)89 (74.1)
MicroScan turbidity (118)1 (0.8)82 (69.5)35 (29.7)
Phoenix (120)37 (30.8)81 (67.5)2 (1.7)
Vitek 2 (120)63 (52.5)50 (41.7)7 (5.8)
Etest (210)40 (33.3)79 (65.9)1 (0.8)
MIC = 2MicroScan prompt (25)23 (92.0)2 (8.0)
MicroScan turbidity (25)3 (12.0)21 (84.0)1 (4.0)
Phoenix (25)19 (76.0)5 (20.0)1 (4.0)
Vitek 2 (25)2 (8.0)3 (12.0)17 (68.0)3 (12.0)
Etest (25)20 (80.0)5 (20.0)
  • a —, no value found at this dilution.