Evaluation of two media for antibiotic susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria using the receiver operating characteristic procedure
- 43 Downloads
Wilkins-Chalgren agar and Meat-Yeast agar were evaluated as media for antibiotic susceptibility testing using 112 anaerobic bacterial strains. The results obtained with the two media using the diffusion method were compared with those obtained by the dilution method as reference method. The results were analyzed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) procedure allowing a graphic representation of sensitivity and specificity of the technique for each cut-off value. The area under the ROC curves was calculated to compare the accuracy of the two methods. Six antibiotics were tested including amoxicillin, cefoxitin, piperacillin, doxycycline and clindamycin. For amoxicillin and clindamycin, the two methods showed a high and identical discriminative power for distinguishing susceptible bacteria from the others. Diffusion in Wilkins-Chalgren agar appeared better than diffusion in Meat-Yeast agar for separating resistant bacteria from bacteria of intermediate susceptibility (amoxicillin p<0.005; clindamycin p<0.04). For other drugs, diffusion in Wilkins-Chalgren agar always had a discriminative power higher than that obtained with diffusion in Meat-Yeast agar for separating susceptible bacteria from the others (cefoxitin p<0.0005; piperacillin p<0.02; doxycycline p<0.05). The Wilkins-Chalgren agar medium thus appeared superior to the Meat-Yeast agar medium using the ROC evaluation method, which would deserve wider utilization in the field of microbiology.
KeywordsAgar Receiver Operating Characteristic Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Amoxicillin Agar Medium
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Magot M Anaérobies: méthodologie. In: Courvalin P, Goldstein F, Philippon AS, Sirot J (ed): L'antibiogramme. Mpc-Vidéom, Paris, 1985, p. 133–138.Google Scholar
- 3.Tally FP, Cuhchural GJ Antibiotic resistance in anaerobic bacteria. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1988, 22, Supplement A: 63–71.Google Scholar
- 6.Swet JA ROC analysis applied to the evaluation of medical imaging tests. Investigative Radiology 1986, 14: 109–121.Google Scholar
- 11.Vinatier D, Monnier JC La courbe R.O.C. (receiver operating curve), une aide à la décision. Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 1988, 17:981–989.Google Scholar
- 13.Kligfield P, Ameisen O, Okin PM Heart rate adjustment of ST segment depression for improved detection of coronary artery disease. Circulation 1989, 79: 248–255.Google Scholar
- 15.Holdman LV, Cato EP, Moore WEC Anaerobe laboratory manual. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA, 1977, p. 156.Google Scholar
- 16.Acar J, Bergogne-Bérézin E, Chabbert Y, Cluzel R, Courtieu A, Courvalin P, Dabernat H, Drugeon H, Duval J, Fleurette J, Morel CI, Philippon A, Sirot J, Soussy CJ, Thabaut A, Véron M Communiqué 1988 du Comité de l'Antibiogramme de la Société Française de Microbiologie. Pathologie Biologie 1988, 36: 1033–1036.Google Scholar
- 17.Levet PN Antimicrobial susceptibility ofClostridium difficile determined by disc diffusion and breakpoint methods. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1988, 22: 167–173.Google Scholar
- 19.Green D, Swet JA Signal detection theory and psychophysics. John Wiley, New York, 1966, p. 45–49.Google Scholar
- 20.Bamber D The area above the ordinal dominance graph and the area below the receiver operating graph. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1975, 12: 387–415.Google Scholar
- 24.Swet JA, Pickett RM Evaluation of diagnostic systems: methods from signal detection theory. Academic Press, New York, 1982, p. 253.Google Scholar