Literature DB >> 8501229

Accuracy of reporting of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a provincial quality control program: a 9-year study.

A M Mackenzie1, H Richardson, P Missett, D E Wood, D J Groves.   

Abstract

We report the results of a province-wide quality control program in which five methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains were circulated to all Ontario laboratories (hospital, private, and public health laboratories) on nine occasions between 1980 and 1989. The level of expression of methicillin resistance in each of the isolates was determined by performing viable colony counts on serial dilutions of methicillin in agar, and each isolate was assigned to an expression class according to previous published criteria (A. Tomasz, S. Nachman, and H. Leaf, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 35:124-129, 1991). Over this time there was an improvement in the performance of laboratories in the recognition of three strains that were relatively easy to detect (strains B, C, and E). These strains were of expression class II, and 98% of laboratories reported correct identifications in 1986. Performance in identifying two strains (strains A and D) of expression class I remained poor. Strain A was circulated in two surveys in 1987 and 1989, and laboratories were sent a questionnaire requesting details of the methods used in those two surveys. The methods used by the laboratories were classified into three categories: disk diffusion, single-plate screening by agar incorporation, and automated methods, which included premanufactured MIC panels. Between the 1987 and 1989 surveys, there was no change in the performance of the disk diffusion test (60% correct on both occasions), but there was improvement in the sensitivity of the agar incorporation test (36% correct in 1987 and 84% correct in 1989) and in automated methods (43% correct in 1987 and 79% correct in 1989). Over a decade, there was overall improvement in the performance of laboratories in detecting easy-to-detect strains, but there were difficulties in detecting organisms of low expression class, and an organism of very low expression class should be designated as a control organism for routine testing of methicillin-resistant s. aureus isolates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8501229      PMCID: PMC262917          DOI: 10.1128/jcm.31.5.1275-1279.1993

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  19 in total

1.  Detecting methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus by polymerase chain reaction.

Authors:  F C Tenover; L K McDougal
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Stable classes of phenotypic expression in methicillin-resistant clinical isolates of staphylococci.

Authors:  A Tomasz; S Nachman; H Leaf
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Comparison of a polymerase chain reaction assay and a conventional microbiologic method for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  Y Tokue; S Shoji; K Satoh; A Watanabe; M Motomiya
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Transformation of chromosomal and plasmid characters in Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  M Lindberg; J E Sjöström; T Johansson
Journal:  J Bacteriol       Date:  1972-02       Impact factor: 3.490

5.  Variation in the abilities of automated, commercial, and reference methods to detect methicillin-resistant (heteroresistant) Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  S L Hansen; P K Freedy
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  The prevalence of staphylococcal resistance to penicillinase-resistant penicillins. A retrospective and prospective national surveillance trial of isolates from 40 medical centers.

Authors:  R N Jones; A L Barry; R V Gardiner; R R Packer
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1989 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.803

7.  Successful use of broth microdilution in susceptibility tests for methicillin-resistant (heteroresistant) staphylococci.

Authors:  C Thornsberry; L K McDougal
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Reevaluation of the ability of the standardized disk diffusion test to detect methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  J M Boyce
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Interlaboratory variation of antibiograms of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strains with conventional and commercial testing systems.

Authors:  K E Aldridge; A Janney; C V Sanders; R L Marier
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Mapping and characterization of multiple chromosomal factors involved in methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  B Berger-Bächi; A Strässle; J E Gustafson; F H Kayser
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 5.191

View more
  4 in total

1.  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a continuing infection control challenge.

Authors:  J M Boyce
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 3.267

2.  Comparison of ATB staph, rapid ATB staph, Vitek, and E-test methods for detection of oxacillin heteroresistance in staphylococci possessing mecA.

Authors:  N B Frebourg; D Nouet; L Lemée; E Martin; J F Lemeland
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Evaluation of BBL crystal MRSA ID system.

Authors:  C C Knapp; M D Ludwig; J A Washington
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Evidence that the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards disk test is less sensitive than the screen plate for detection of low-expression-class methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  A M Mackenzie; H Richardson; R Lannigan; D Wood
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.948

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.