Volume 8, Issue 2 (2017)
JMBS 2017, 8(2): 85-91 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Standard experimental Petri dish according CLSI data. JMBS 2017; 8 (2) :85-91
URL: http://biot.modares.ac.ir/article-22-3552-en.html
URL: http://biot.modares.ac.ir/article-22-3552-en.html
Abstract: (7899 Views)
Background: wrongs in experiments and laboratories are inevitable particularly if used non-standard methods and tools. In routine disc diffusion test used optical method for pouring media in petri dishes that create non negligible errors in experiments. Goal of this research is design and produce a standard petri dish for this tests and eliminate the wrongs.
Methods: According CLSI standards about sensitivity tests medium standard thickness is 4 millimeters. According these data designed a standard petri dish that determined this standard thickness exactly.
Results: Results of this research showed existing Petri dishes produce wrong and different reports about non-growth haloes even for identical antibiotics that cause to antibiotic unfit administration significantly (P<0.05). In addition, medium waste rate was 33-50% for different petri dishes.
Conclusion: Designed standard petri dish standardized disc diffusion tests and other sensitivity tests and makes accuracy, non- growth haloes uniformity in identical tests, and antibiotics fit choose. Also decrease medium waste rate significantly.
Methods: According CLSI standards about sensitivity tests medium standard thickness is 4 millimeters. According these data designed a standard petri dish that determined this standard thickness exactly.
Results: Results of this research showed existing Petri dishes produce wrong and different reports about non-growth haloes even for identical antibiotics that cause to antibiotic unfit administration significantly (P<0.05). In addition, medium waste rate was 33-50% for different petri dishes.
Conclusion: Designed standard petri dish standardized disc diffusion tests and other sensitivity tests and makes accuracy, non- growth haloes uniformity in identical tests, and antibiotics fit choose. Also decrease medium waste rate significantly.
Article Type: _ |
Subject:
Agricultural Biotechnology
Received: 2016/02/13 | Accepted: 2017/09/23 | Published: 2018/01/27
Received: 2016/02/13 | Accepted: 2017/09/23 | Published: 2018/01/27
References
1. Abbasi,S., andMansouri,S.(2008) Accuracyof identification and susceptibility tests of gram negative bacilli performed routinely by clinical laboratories compared to the standard procedures in Kerman.Iran J Med Microbiol.2(2),49-54.
2. Paterson,DL.(2006)Resistance in gram-negativebacteria: Enterobacteriaceae. AJIC.119(6), 20-28
3. Abbassi,E.,Rahbar,M.,Hekmat Yazdi,S., RashedMarandi,F., Sabourian,R.,andSaremi,M.(2006)Evaluationof the 10th External Quality Assessment Schemeresults in clinical microbiology laboratories inTehran and districts. East Mediterr Health J.12(3-4),310-315.
4. Performance Standards for AntimicrobialSusceptibility Testing; Twenty-FifthInformational Supplement (M100-S25). (2015) 35,146-176.
5. DePalma G., Turnidge J., Craig BA. (2016) Determination of disk diffusion susceptibility testing interpretive criteria using model-based analysis: development and implementation. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1-20. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2016.03.004
6. Fatemi Motlagh,M.,andMansoori,N.(2009)Disc antibiogram test with graded plate method. Mljgoums.3(2), 53-59
7. Fatemi Motlagh,M., Varham,H., and Mansori,N.(2010)Gradient Plate for Hicomb Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Test. Mljgoums.4(2), 45-51.
8. Fatemi Motlagh,M.,andHoshmand Far,R.(2013)produce well petri dish for fungi sensitivity measurement. MJTUOMS.34(6), 49-53
9. Zaheer F., Usman S., Fatima S., Ul hasan M. (2015) COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ANTIBIOTICS FOR THEIR ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY IN CLINICAL ISOLATES. IJPSR. 6(2): 630-635
10. Ventola, C L. (2015) The Antibiotic Resistance Crisis: Part 1: Causes and Threats.Pharmacy and Therapeutics.40(4):277–283
11. Kerr JR. (2005) Antibiotic treatment and susceptibility testing.Journal of Clinical Pathology.58(8): 786–787. http://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2005.030411
12. Bonev B., Hooper J., Parisot J. (2008) Principles of assessing bacterial susceptibility to antibiotics using the agar diffusion method. J Antimicrob Chemother.61(6):1295-301.
13. Metzler CM., DeHaan RM. (1974). Susceptibility tests of anaerobic bacteria: statistical and clinical considerations. J Infect Dis. 130(6):588–94.
14. Craig BA. (2000) Modeling approach to diameter breakpoint determination. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 36(3):193–202
15. Annis DH., Craig BA. (2005) Statistical properties and inference of the antimicrobial MIC test. Stat Med. 24(23):3631–44
16. Reller LB., Weinstein M., Jorgensen JH., Ferraro MJ. (2009)Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: A Review of General Principles and Contemporary Practices. Clinical Infectious Diseases49, 1749-1755
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |