Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: A Review of General Principles and Contemporary Practices
Abstract
An important task of the clinical microbiology laboratory is the performance of antimicrobial susceptibility testing of significant bacterial isolates. The goals of testing are to detect possible drug resistance in common pathogens and to assure susceptibility to drugs of choice for particular infections. The most widely used testing methods include broth microdilution or rapid automated instrument methods that use commercially marketed materials and devices. Manual methods that provide flexibility and possible cost savings include the disk diffusion and gradient diffusion methods. Each method has strengths and weaknesses, including organisms that may be accurately tested by the method. Some methods provide quantitative results (eg, minimum inhibitory concentration), and all provide qualitative assessments using the categories susceptible, intermediate, or resistant. In general, current testing methods provide accurate detection of common antimicrobial resistance mechanisms. However, newer or emerging mechanisms of resistance require constant vigilance regarding the ability of each test method to accurately detect resistance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Etest strips cost about $2-3 each, so the approach becomes costly if numerous drugs are tested.
“However, Etest® strips cost about $2–3 each. Therefore, this approach becomes costly if numerous drugs are tested [11].”
From Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review (2016) · cites this paper as [11]
Antibiogram provides qualitative results by categorizing bacteria as susceptible, intermediate or resistant.
“Antibiogram provides qualitative results by categorizing bacteria as susceptible, intermediate or resistant [11].”
From Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review (2016) · cites this paper as [11]
The main disadvantages of macrodilution are tedious manual undertaking, risk of errors in preparation of antimicrobial solutions for each test, and comparatively large amount of reagents and space required.
“Unlike microdilution method, the main disadvantages of the macrodilution method are the tedious, manual undertaking, risk of errors in the preparation of antimicrobial solutions for each test, and the comparatively large amount of reagents and space required [11].”
From Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review (2016) · cites this paper as [11]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review
Balouiri, M., Sadiki, M., & Ibnsouda, S. K. (2016) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.jpha.2015.11.005 · Cited by 7,264 · see citing works
Precision medicine for cancer with next-generation functional diagnostics
Friedman, A. A., Letai, A., Fisher, D. E., & Flaherty, K. T. (2015) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc4015 · Cited by 570 · see citing works
Personalised organs-on-chips: functional testing for precision medicine
van den Berg, A., Mummery, C. L., Passier, R., & van der Meer, A. D. (2019) · Lab on a Chip · doi:10.1039/c8lc00827b · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Dai, Y., Li, C., Yi, J., Qin, Q., Liu, B., & Qiao, L. (2020) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00494 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jorgensen, J. H., & Ferraro, M. J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jorgensen, James H.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1749-1755
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2109684694
- Cited by
- 1,894
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 93 · 2025: 137 · 2024: 158 · 2023: 185 · 2022: 187 · 2021: 180 · 2020: 177 · 2019: 173 · 2018: 139 · 2017: 127 · 2016: 108 · 2015: 84 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 9.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
- Keywords
- antimicrobial susceptibility testing, antimicrobial resistance, broth microdilution, disk diffusion, gradient diffusion, minimum inhibitory concentration, automated susceptibility testing, clinical microbiology laboratory
- MeSH terms
- Anti-Bacterial Agents, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Drug Resistance, Bacterial
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review