Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/11404069
Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
4
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
2001-6-13
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
The objective of our study is to assess the impact of different methods of duplicate isolate removal on cumulative susceptibility reports. Over a 1-year period, we studied the effect of 3 methods of duplicate isolate removal on the cumulative percentage susceptibility of 9 Gram-negative bacilli to 15 antimicrobials. Raw data from which no duplicate isolates were removed (NR) were generated by the Sensititre breakpoint susceptibility testing system. D3 and D7 were methods of duplicate isolate removal defined as follows: same patient, bacterial species, irrespective of susceptibility within either three (D3) or seven (D7) calendar days of the date of the previous culture. The third method evaluated was an algorithm utilized by Cerner, a laboratory management program that defines duplicate isolates as follows: same patient, bacterial species, and NCCLS susceptibility category to an individual antimicrobial. Differences in percentage susceptibility between the three methods of duplicate isolate removal and NR were assessed. The number of isolates studied ranged from 80 (E. aerogenes) to 681 (P. aeruginosa). Of the methods of duplicate isolate removal, the highest percentage susceptibility occurred most frequently with Cerner followed by D7 and D3. Differences in percentage susceptibility between methods of removal and NR ranged from -11 to 25%, -5 to 8%, and -3 to 10%, with Cerner, D3, and D7, respectively. The percentage susceptibility was at least 5% higher than NR with a method of removal for 15 individual organism/antimicrobial combinations in which susceptibility was > or = 70% by at least one of the methods. These occurred most frequently with Enterobacter species and Cerner. Although there is no consensus on the ideal method of duplicate isolate removal, one should be cognizant that these manipulations may produce different cumulative susceptibility reports.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:chemical | |
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Apr
|
| pubmed:issn |
0732-8893
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
39
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
251-6
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2009-11-3
|
| pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:11404069-Algorithms,
pubmed-meshheading:11404069-Aminoglycosides,
pubmed-meshheading:11404069-Anti-Bacterial Agents,
pubmed-meshheading:11404069-Data Interpretation, Statistical,
pubmed-meshheading:11404069-Fluoroquinolones,
pubmed-meshheading:11404069-Gram-Negative Bacteria,
pubmed-meshheading:11404069-Hospital Bed Capacity, 500 and over,
pubmed-meshheading:11404069-Humans,
pubmed-meshheading:11404069-Lactams,
pubmed-meshheading:11404069-Microbial Sensitivity Tests,
pubmed-meshheading:11404069-Software
|
| pubmed:year |
2001
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Effect of removal of duplicate isolates on cumulative susceptibility reports.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
College of Pharmacy, Medical University of South Carolina, Room QF 219, 280 Calhoun St., PO 250142, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. whiterl@musc.edu
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article
|