↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of antibiotic susceptibility test results: how guilty a laboratory could be?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, January 2019
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
373 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of antibiotic susceptibility test results: how guilty a laboratory could be?
Published in
Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, January 2019
DOI 10.1186/s42506-018-0006-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed S. M. Nassar, Walaa A. Hazzah, Wafaa M. K. Bakr

Abstract

The selection of an appropriate antimicrobial is a challenging task for clinicians. The Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method is one of the most widely practiced antimicrobial susceptibility tests (AST). It is affected by many factors among which are the media used. Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) is the standard medium recommended in guidelines. However, these guidelines are not strictly adhered to in some developing countries. Validation of AST results on nutrient agar (NA) medium used as a substitute for MHA by some microbiology laboratories in Alexandria, Egypt. A total of 149 clinical bacterial isolates and 3 reference strains: Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) ATCC® 25923, Escherichia coli (E. coli) ATCC®25922, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) ATCC®27853 were comparatively challenged to antibiotics employing MHA and NA. All antibiotics-reference bacterial strain challenges on NA compared to MHA were unacceptable (> 3 out of limit zones in 30 consecutive days). Considering clinical isolates, the frequency of very major, major, and minor errors on NA was highest in the case of P. aeruginosa (8.98%, 4.08%, and 14.7% respectively) followed by S. aureus (7.6%, 6%, and 8.8% respectively). On the other hand, the least frequency of errors was in the case of Enterobacteriaceae (0%, 0.4%, and 3.2% respectively). Using NA in AST resulted in multiple errors and the high discrepancy in results compared to MHA making it unreliable for susceptibility testing. MHA should not be replaced by NA in AST. Following guidelines and QC measures for AST must be neither bypassed nor underestimated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 373 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 373 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 66 18%
Student > Master 29 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 3%
Other 9 2%
Other 33 9%
Unknown 210 56%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 19 5%
Chemistry 14 4%
Other 46 12%
Unknown 214 57%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 January 2019.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association
#133
of 162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#385,453
of 445,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 162 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.