• Merav Strauss, Kariman Zoabi, Dana Sagas, Bela Reznik-Gitlitz, and Raul Colodner.
• Microbiology Laboratory, Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel.
• Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2020 Feb 1; 39 (2): 375-384.

AbstractThe disc diffusion test is used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing worldwide. In this study, the performance of both Bio-Rad® antibiotic discs (as compared with Oxoid® discs) and the ADAGIO™ automated system for the reading of disc diffusion test results was evaluated with American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) quality control (QC) and wild strains of bacteria. Inhibition zones of both disc brands were read manually and through use of the ADAGIO™ system. Categorized interpretation of the results for each strain and antibiotic combination was summarized according to the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute MS-100 (2017 update) manual and ADAGIO™ readings. Eight ATCC QC strains and 120 different wild strains were evaluated, to give a total of 1226 antibiotic/bacteria combinations and 2486 manual readings. One major error and four minor errors (0.08% and 0.34%, respectively) were detected via manual readings of the Bio-Rad® discs as compared with the Oxoid® discs. For the same number of antibiotic/bacteria combinations, five minor errors and one major error (0.42% and 0.08%, respectively) were detected with the Bio-Rad® discs read by the ADAGIO™ system. In addition, the number of times the automatic reading needed manual edition with Bio-Rad® discs was statistically lower than it did with Oxoid® discs (3.7% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.05). These findings support the hypothesis that Bio-Rad discs are not inferior to Oxoid® discs, and the performance of the ADAGIO™ system is comparable to that of manual readings with both disc brands.

17 keywords...

hide…