2011
DOI: 10.1590/s1517-83822011000400003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of teicoplanin disk diffusion and broth microdilution methods against clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and S. epidermidis

Abstract: The CLSI M100-S19 document has recommended the disuse of vancomycin disks for staphylococci and informed that studies on the action of teicoplanin in disk-diffusion testing should be performed. We describe the comparison of two methods, disk diffusion and broth microdilution, for determining teicoplanin susceptibility in clinical isolates of staphylococci. Overall results showed an aggregation rate of 96.8%; Staphylococcus aureus showed total agreement while S. epidermidis showed 93.8% of agreement. According … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Results for vancomycin by disk diffusion test have been criticized and in 2011 the CLSI M100-S19 document has recommended the disuse of vancomycin disks for staphylococci and informed that studies on the action of teicoplanin in disk-diffusion testing should be performed (Camargo et al . 2011 ), however, for screening purposes, such as in this study, the disk diffusion test is still a viable choice, especially for enterococci (Hegstad et al . 2014 ; Wongthong et al .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Results for vancomycin by disk diffusion test have been criticized and in 2011 the CLSI M100-S19 document has recommended the disuse of vancomycin disks for staphylococci and informed that studies on the action of teicoplanin in disk-diffusion testing should be performed (Camargo et al . 2011 ), however, for screening purposes, such as in this study, the disk diffusion test is still a viable choice, especially for enterococci (Hegstad et al . 2014 ; Wongthong et al .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Teicoplanin resistance is an increasing and emerging challenge, but published data are inconclusive due to a number of factors. These include the different methods employed (e.g., broth microdilution vs. disk diffusion [ 4 ]); settings, diagnostic vs. research (e.g., broth microdilution vs. population analysis); the standards employed (e.g., CLSI vs. EUCAST defined breakpoints); the inclusion of diverse cohorts (e.g., catheter-related bacteremia vs. healthy volunteers [ 17 , 19 ]; the bacterial species studied (most studies have focused on S. aureus and fewer on CoNS [ 20 ]); clonal dissemination [ 21 ]; data generated at different time points [ 22 ]; or that teicoplanin was not tested. Thus, to date, reports have probably underestimated the true incidence of teicoplanin resistance and are still insufficient to identify its underlying mechanisms with certainty.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(1) 'nın çalışmasında 63 stafilokok suşunun bu iki yöntem ile elde edilen duyarlılık sonuçla-rının % 96.8 oranında uyumlu bulunduğu bildirilmiş, uyumsuz sonuç bulunan tüm stafilokokların (iki suş) S.epidermidis olduğu ve uyumsuzluğun minör hata düzeyinde olduğunu (DD ile orta duyarlı iken mikrodilüsyon ile duyarlı ya da dirençli olması) belirtilmiştir. Araştırmacılar bu bulgularına dayanarak DD yönteminin en azından kendi hastaneleri için halen stafilokokların teikoplanin duyarlılığını tespit etmede kullanılabileceğini öne sürmüştür.…”
Section: Discussionunclassified