The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Statistical Methods for Establishing Quality Control Ranges for Antibacterial Agents in Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Susceptibility Testing
Open accessAbstract
Quality control (QC) ranges for antimicrobial agents against QC strains for both dilution and disk diffusion testing are currently set by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), using data gathered in predefined structured multilaboratory studies, so-called tier 2 studies. The ranges are finally selected by the relevant CLSI subcommittee, based largely on visual inspection and a few simple rules. We have developed statistical methods for analyzing the data from tier 2 studies and applied them to QC strain-antimicrobial agent combinations from 178 dilution testing data sets and 48 disk diffusion data sets, including a method for identifying possible outlier data from individual laboratories. The methods are based on the fact that dilution testing MIC data were log normally distributed and disk diffusion zone diameter data were normally distributed. For dilution testing, compared to QC ranges actually set by CLSI, calculated ranges were identical in 68% of cases, narrower in 7% of cases, and wider in 14% of cases. For disk diffusion testing, calculated ranges were identical to CLSI ranges in 33% of cases, narrower in 8% of cases, and 1 to 2 mm wider in 58% of cases. Possible outliers were detected in 8% of diffusion test data but none of the disk diffusion data. Application of statistical techniques to the analysis of QC tier 2 data and the setting of QC ranges is relatively simple to perform on spreadsheets, and the output enhances the current CLSI methods for setting of QC ranges.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Data from eight laboratories were included for each proposed QC range except for the combination of posaconazole and P. variotii, for which data from seven laboratories were included.
“we were able to include data from the eight laboratories for each of the proposed QC ranges depicted in Tables 1 to 4 except for the combination of posaconazole and P. variotii (3, 10, 11).”
From Quality Control Guidelines for Amphotericin B, Itraconazole, Posaconazole, and Voriconazole Disk Diffusion Susceptibility Tests with Nonsupplemented Mueller-Hinton Agar (CLSI M51-A Document) for Nondermatophyte Filamentous Fungi (2011) · cites this paper as [11]
The paper’s introductory discussion says tier 2 studies require at least seven laboratories, and its Discussion says eight laboratories are commonly used. It does not report the laboratory counts for the proposed QC ranges in the citing paper’s Tables 1–4 or identify a posaconazole–P. variotii exception. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredVisual inspection of the raw data suggested that one participating laboratory may have been an outlier.
“Visual inspection of the raw data suggested that one participating laboratory may have been an outlier (11).”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Espinel-Ingroff, A., Canton, E., Fothergill, A., Ghannoum, M., Johnson, E., Jones, R. N., Ostrosky-Zeichner, L., Schell, W., Gibbs, D. L., Wang, A., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.00393-11 · Cited by 78
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Turnidge, J., & Bordash, G.
- Affiliations
- Women's and Children's Hospital (AU)
- Microscan Systems (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Turnidge, John
- ORCID
- Turnidge, John
- Venue
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2007-07
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2483-2488
- ISSN
- 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-6596
- PMC
- PMC1913260
- OpenAlex
- W2127400909
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 0.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Microsoft
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology (medical) › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals
- Keywords
- antimicrobial susceptibility testing, CLSI guidelines, disk diffusion, broth dilution, minimum inhibitory concentration, zone diameter, outlier detection, lognormal distribution
- MeSH terms
- Academies and Institutes, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Quality Control
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