Background: MRSA phenotypic detection has been a problem since it was found in 1962. Some studies explain that the diffusion method of cefoxitinand oxacilin disk test can be used to detect MRSA. Objective: knowing if there is difference between cefoxitin disk test and oxacilin disk test to detectMRSA.Method: laboratory experimental research with diagnostic test design. Research was done at the laboratory of medicine faculty of UNISSULA using 24 watch glasses, 12 with MRSA bacteria (Meticillin Resisten Staphylococcus aureus), and the other 12 with MSSA bacteria (Meticillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus). specimentsThe results were classified into sensitive and resistant category based on CLSI standard (Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute).Hypothesis test using fisher test, with significance level <0,05Results: speciments MRSA detection using cefoxitin disk resulted 12 resistant speciments and no sensitive speciments. The oxacilin disk resulted 9 resistant speciments and 3 sensitive speciments. MSSA detection using cefoxitin disk resulted no resistant speciments and 12 sensitive speciments, oxacilin disk resulted no resistant speciments and 12 sensitive speciments. Diagnostic test was done by CEBM statistic calculator. The sensitivity and specificity value of MRSA sampels using cefoxitin disk were 96,2% & 96,2%, PPV (positive predictive value) 96,2%, NPV (negative predictive value) with was 96,2%. While the oxacilin disk, the sensitivity was 73,1%, specificity 96,2%, PPV 95,0%, NPV 73,8%. The result of fisher test for cefoxitin disk and oxacilin disk was p=0.000 meant there was difference between cefoxitin disk test and oxacilin disk test to detect MRSA.Conclusion: diffusion method in cefoxitin disk is better than oxacillin disk in MRSA detection.
Background: Blood cultures in conjunction with the initial Gram stain of positive cultures have often been considered the “gold standard†for the diagnosis of bacteremia. When blood cultures turn positive, the attending physicians are usually notified immediately about Gram stain findings. However, information on the accuracy of Gram staining is very limited. We examined the error of preliminary blood culture reports provided by a local laboratory in an observational study.Design and Method: This was an observational study with a cross sectional approach. In this study, 369 blood cultures were examined. The positive blood cultures (135 samples) were then examined by Gram stain. Blood cultures handled on Bactec 9050, while the Gram stain was done in standard procedure Gram. Interpretation errors of Gram stain were confirmed by cultures result.Result: During one month (April 2011) we examined 369 blood cultures which 135 are positive (36.5%). Positive blood cultures were misread for 6 (4.4%) of 135 patients, they were two read as gram positive cocci had gram negative organisms by culture which were Acinetobacter baumannii, one read as gram positive bacilli had gram negative bacilli by culture which was Klebsiella pneumoniae. One isolate read as gram negative bacilli had gram positive bacilli which was Bacillus species, while two sample read as gram negative bacilli only had polymicrobial by culture, of these one isolate grew to be Enterobacter aerogenes and Staphylococcus aureus and the other were Escherichia coli and Acinetobacter spp.Conclusion: The overall 4.4% error rate of misinterpreted Gram stains from positive blood culture bottles is relatively high, so laboratory professionals and clinical microbiologist must be aware of the potential types of error that occur (Sains Medika, 4(1):23-29).
Background: Influenza is the major health threat worldwide causing illness and death every year. However, data on the epidemiology of influenza in tropical countries, including Indonesia, are still limited. Up dated data for its prevalence is needed to monitor its spreading and to evaluate its outbreak. Therefore a working regional laboratory in surveillance of ILI (Influenza Like Illness) was formed. This research was conducted to provide updated data on prevalence of ILI in regional laboratorium avian influenza Semarang.Design and Method: Data from patients examined in the regional laboratory of avian influenza Semarang from April 2009 until December 2010 was collected. Samples were obtained from Malang sentinel, Yogyakarta sentinel and Semarang sentinel. Samples were examined using PCR to detect influenza A, influenza B, and swine flu.Result: out 1367 patients tested, 279 patients (20.41%) were from Yogyakarta sentinel, 619 patients (45.28%) were from Malang sentinel, and 467 patients (34.16%) were from Semarang sentinel. Flu A virus was detected in 117 patients (8.5%). Influenza B virus was found in 39 patients (2.8%). H1 virus was detected in 5 patients (0.36%). H3 virus was detected in 45 patients (3.29%). Swine flu virus was detected in 3 patients in Malang.Conclusion: The highest prevalence of flu A and flu B examined in avian influenza regional laboratory Semarang was from Semarang sentinel, followed by Yogyakarta sentinel and Malang (Sains Medika, 3(2):157-161).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.