Cargando…
Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance
The effect of duplicate isolate removal strategies on Staphylococcal aureus susceptibility to oxacillin was compared by using antimicrobial test results for 14,595 isolates from statewide surveillance in Hawaii in 2002. No removal was compared to most resistant and most susceptible methods at 365 da...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
2005
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3366743/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16318695 http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1110.050162 |
_version_ | 1782234766908588032 |
---|---|
author | Li, Fenfang Ayers, Tracy L. Park, Sarah Y. Miller, F. DeWolfe MacFadden, Ralph Nakata, Michele Lee, Myra Ching Effler, Paul V. |
author_facet | Li, Fenfang Ayers, Tracy L. Park, Sarah Y. Miller, F. DeWolfe MacFadden, Ralph Nakata, Michele Lee, Myra Ching Effler, Paul V. |
author_sort | Li, Fenfang |
collection | PubMed |
description | The effect of duplicate isolate removal strategies on Staphylococcal aureus susceptibility to oxacillin was compared by using antimicrobial test results for 14,595 isolates from statewide surveillance in Hawaii in 2002. No removal was compared to most resistant and most susceptible methods at 365 days and to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) and Cerner algorithms at 3-, 10-, 30-, 90-, and 365-day analysis periods. Overall, no removal produced the lowest estimates of susceptibility. Estimates with either NCCLS or Cerner differed by <2% when the analysis period was the same; with either method, the difference observed between a 90- and a 365-day period was <1%. The effect of duplicate isolate removal was greater for inpatient than outpatient settings. Considering the ease of implementation and comparability of results, we recommend using the first isolate of a given species per patient to calculate susceptibility frequencies for S. aureus to oxacillin. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3366743 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2005 |
publisher | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-33667432012-06-07 Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance Li, Fenfang Ayers, Tracy L. Park, Sarah Y. Miller, F. DeWolfe MacFadden, Ralph Nakata, Michele Lee, Myra Ching Effler, Paul V. Emerg Infect Dis Research The effect of duplicate isolate removal strategies on Staphylococcal aureus susceptibility to oxacillin was compared by using antimicrobial test results for 14,595 isolates from statewide surveillance in Hawaii in 2002. No removal was compared to most resistant and most susceptible methods at 365 days and to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) and Cerner algorithms at 3-, 10-, 30-, 90-, and 365-day analysis periods. Overall, no removal produced the lowest estimates of susceptibility. Estimates with either NCCLS or Cerner differed by <2% when the analysis period was the same; with either method, the difference observed between a 90- and a 365-day period was <1%. The effect of duplicate isolate removal was greater for inpatient than outpatient settings. Considering the ease of implementation and comparability of results, we recommend using the first isolate of a given species per patient to calculate susceptibility frequencies for S. aureus to oxacillin. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2005-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3366743/ /pubmed/16318695 http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1110.050162 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is a publication of the U.S. Government. This publication is in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from this work may be reprinted freely. Use of these materials should be properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Li, Fenfang Ayers, Tracy L. Park, Sarah Y. Miller, F. DeWolfe MacFadden, Ralph Nakata, Michele Lee, Myra Ching Effler, Paul V. Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance |
title | Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance |
title_full | Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance |
title_fullStr | Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance |
title_full_unstemmed | Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance |
title_short | Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance |
title_sort | isolate removal methods and methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus surveillance |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3366743/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16318695 http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1110.050162 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lifenfang isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance AT ayerstracyl isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance AT parksarahy isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance AT millerfdewolfe isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance AT macfaddenralph isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance AT nakatamichele isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance AT leemyraching isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance AT efflerpaulv isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance |