Evaluation of the OSIRIS video reader system for disk diffusion susceptibility test reading

19Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of the OSIRIS video-assisted reading system for disk diffusion susceptibility testing with conventional manual reading. Methods. Prospectively collected clinical isolates (n=119) and isolates with well-characterised resistant mechanisms, including extended-spectrum (ESBL) or inhibitor-resistant TEM (IRT) β-lactamases producing Enterobacteriaceae (80), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (16) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (14) were studied using the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards disk-diffusion technique. The OSIRIS reading (inhibition zone in mm) was compared with manual reading (reference value). Results. Essential agreement (≤3 mm discrepancy with manual reading) was 91.6% in routine isolates and 94.8% in those with well-characterised resistant mechanisms, respectively. Overall agreement for susceptibility testing interpretation was slightly higher in the former (95.5%) than in the latter (93.2%) group. The presence of ESBL enzymes enhanced variations of measurements due to synergy among amoxicillin-clavulanate and cephalosporins, as a consequence of closer disk placement. The poor growth characteristic of enterococci affected the video reading; on the other hand, there was a high performance with MRSA isolates. Combining all interpretative results, 4.1% minor, 1.0% major and 2.8% very major errors were observed. Conclusion. The OSIRIS system is a useful tool for the reading and interpretation of inhibition zone sizes in disk diffusion susceptibility testing.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sánchez, M. A., Sánchez del Saz, B., Loza, E., Baquero, F., & Cantón, R. (2001). Evaluation of the OSIRIS video reader system for disk diffusion susceptibility test reading. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 7(7), 352–357. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1198-743X.2001.00274.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free