血培养标记阳性直接盘扩散抗生素药敏试验的准确性和可靠性。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Osman Sianipar, Rizka N Firdaus, Ira Puspitawati
{"title":"血培养标记阳性直接盘扩散抗生素药敏试验的准确性和可靠性。","authors":"Osman Sianipar, Rizka N Firdaus, Ira Puspitawati","doi":"10.3855/jidc.19175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Antibiotic susceptibility tests (AST) done on blood cultures are critical for the treatment of patients suspected to be suffering from bloodstream infection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of disc diffusion AST conducted directly (direct AST) from flagged-positive blood cultures, especially for Gram-positive cocci bacteria.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This study compared direct AST with conventional AST (broth micro-dilution). The antibiotics studied were piperacillin/tazobactam, gentamicin, ceftazidime, erythromycin, and penicillin. Accuracy was determined by calculating very major, major, and minor errors. The reliability was determined by categorical agreement and weighted Kappa index.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Gram-positive cocci bacteria were grown in pairs of blood culture bottles and tested with the two methods of AST. No very major errors were detected among the five types of antibiotics. Major errors of 2.56% and minor errors of 4.93% were found when testing gentamicin. The major and minor errors when testing erythromycin were 2.85% and 1.23%, respectively. Perfect agreements (categorical agreement: 100%; weighted Kappa index: 1) of the two AST methods were observed with piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftazidime, and penicillin. Almost perfect agreement was found with gentamicin and erythromycin. Categorical agreement results when testing antibiotics gentamicin and erythromycin were 93.83% and 97.53%, respectively. In addition, the weighted-Kappa index when testing these two antibiotics were 0.92 and 0.96, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The accuracy and reliability of the direct AST was within acceptable limits.</p>","PeriodicalId":49160,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries","volume":"18 10","pages":"1539-1545"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy and reliability of direct disc diffusion antibiotic susceptibility test from flagged-positive of blood culture.\",\"authors\":\"Osman Sianipar, Rizka N Firdaus, Ira Puspitawati\",\"doi\":\"10.3855/jidc.19175\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Antibiotic susceptibility tests (AST) done on blood cultures are critical for the treatment of patients suspected to be suffering from bloodstream infection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of disc diffusion AST conducted directly (direct AST) from flagged-positive blood cultures, especially for Gram-positive cocci bacteria.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This study compared direct AST with conventional AST (broth micro-dilution). The antibiotics studied were piperacillin/tazobactam, gentamicin, ceftazidime, erythromycin, and penicillin. Accuracy was determined by calculating very major, major, and minor errors. The reliability was determined by categorical agreement and weighted Kappa index.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Gram-positive cocci bacteria were grown in pairs of blood culture bottles and tested with the two methods of AST. No very major errors were detected among the five types of antibiotics. Major errors of 2.56% and minor errors of 4.93% were found when testing gentamicin. The major and minor errors when testing erythromycin were 2.85% and 1.23%, respectively. Perfect agreements (categorical agreement: 100%; weighted Kappa index: 1) of the two AST methods were observed with piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftazidime, and penicillin. Almost perfect agreement was found with gentamicin and erythromycin. Categorical agreement results when testing antibiotics gentamicin and erythromycin were 93.83% and 97.53%, respectively. In addition, the weighted-Kappa index when testing these two antibiotics were 0.92 and 0.96, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The accuracy and reliability of the direct AST was within acceptable limits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries\",\"volume\":\"18 10\",\"pages\":\"1539-1545\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.19175\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.19175","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对血液培养物进行抗生素敏感性试验(AST)对于治疗怀疑患有血流感染的患者至关重要。本研究的目的是评估从标记阳性的血液培养中直接进行的盘扩散AST(直接AST)的准确性和可靠性,特别是对于革兰氏阳性球菌。方法:本研究比较了直接AST和传统AST(肉汤微量稀释)。研究的抗生素有哌拉西林/他唑巴坦、庆大霉素、头孢他啶、红霉素和青霉素。准确性是通过计算非常大的、大的和小的误差来确定的。通过分类一致性和加权Kappa指数来确定信度。结果:革兰氏阳性球菌在成对血培养瓶中培养,采用AST两种方法检测,5种抗生素间均未发现非常大的误差。庆大霉素检测的主要错误为2.56%,次要错误为4.93%。红霉素检测的主要误差为2.85%,次要误差为1.23%。完全一致(绝对一致:100%;加权Kappa指数:1)用哌拉西林/他唑巴坦、头孢他啶和青霉素观察两种AST方法的差异。庆大霉素和红霉素几乎完全一致。抗生素庆大霉素和红霉素检测的分类一致性分别为93.83%和97.53%。另外,两种抗生素检测时的加权kappa指数分别为0.92和0.96。结论:直接AST的准确性和可靠性在可接受范围内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy and reliability of direct disc diffusion antibiotic susceptibility test from flagged-positive of blood culture.

Introduction: Antibiotic susceptibility tests (AST) done on blood cultures are critical for the treatment of patients suspected to be suffering from bloodstream infection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of disc diffusion AST conducted directly (direct AST) from flagged-positive blood cultures, especially for Gram-positive cocci bacteria.

Methodology: This study compared direct AST with conventional AST (broth micro-dilution). The antibiotics studied were piperacillin/tazobactam, gentamicin, ceftazidime, erythromycin, and penicillin. Accuracy was determined by calculating very major, major, and minor errors. The reliability was determined by categorical agreement and weighted Kappa index.

Results: Gram-positive cocci bacteria were grown in pairs of blood culture bottles and tested with the two methods of AST. No very major errors were detected among the five types of antibiotics. Major errors of 2.56% and minor errors of 4.93% were found when testing gentamicin. The major and minor errors when testing erythromycin were 2.85% and 1.23%, respectively. Perfect agreements (categorical agreement: 100%; weighted Kappa index: 1) of the two AST methods were observed with piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftazidime, and penicillin. Almost perfect agreement was found with gentamicin and erythromycin. Categorical agreement results when testing antibiotics gentamicin and erythromycin were 93.83% and 97.53%, respectively. In addition, the weighted-Kappa index when testing these two antibiotics were 0.92 and 0.96, respectively.

Conclusions: The accuracy and reliability of the direct AST was within acceptable limits.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
239
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries (JIDC) is an international journal, intended for the publication of scientific articles from Developing Countries by scientists from Developing Countries. JIDC is an independent, on-line publication with an international editorial board. JIDC is open access with no cost to view or download articles and reasonable cost for publication of research artcles, making JIDC easily availiable to scientists from resource restricted regions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信