Cited by 721Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy

Comparison of three different in vitro methods of detecting synergy: time-kill, checkerboard, and E test

Open access
White, R L, Burgess, D S, Manduru, M, Bosso, J A·1996·Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Abstract

An in vitro method of detecting synergy which is simple to perform, accurate, and reproducible and has the potential for clinical extrapolation is desirable. Time-kill and checkerboard methods are the most widely used techniques to assess synergy but are time-consuming and labor-intensive. The Epsilometer test (E test), a less technically demanding test, has not been well studied for synergy testing. We performed synergy testing of Escherichia coli ATCC 35218, Enterobacter cloacae ATCC 23355, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 with various combinations of cefepime or ceftazidime with tobramycin or ciprofloxacin using time-kill, checkerboard, and E test techniques. Time-kill testing was performed against each organism alone and in combinations at one-fourth times the MIC (1/4 x MIC) and 2 x MIC. With checkerboard tests, the same combinations were studied at concentrations ranging from 1/32 x to 4 x MIC. Standard definitions for synergy, indifference, and antagonism were utilized. E test strips were crossed at a 90 degree angle so the scales met at the MIC of each drug alone, and the fractional inhibitory concentrations index was calculated on the basis of the resultant zone on inhibition. All antimicrobial combinations demonstrated some degree of synergy against the test organisms, and antagonism was infrequent. Agreement with time-kill testing ranged from 44 to 88% and 63 to 75% by the checkerboard and E test synergy methods, respectively. Despite each of these methods utilizing different conditions and endpoints, there was frequent agreement among the methods. Further comparisons of the E test synergy technique with the checkerboard and time-kill methods are warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aac.40.8.1914

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The Etest technique can also be performed to investigate antimicrobial interaction between two drugs.

    “This technique can also be performed to investigate the antimicrobial interaction between two drugs [28].”
  • The time-kill method can be used to determine synergism or antagonism between drugs (two or more) in combinations.

    “In addition, this method can be used to determine synergism or antagonism between drugs (two or more) in combinations [28], [55].”
  • The low-dose sensitizing effects of FS did not meet the stringent criteria for synergism as put forward by White and coworkers.

    “However the low-dose sensitizing effects of FS did not meet the stringent criteria for synergism as put forward by White and coworkers [12].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 721

Authors
White, R. L., Burgess, D. S., Manduru, M., & Bosso, J. A.
Affiliations
Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Venue
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Published
1996-08
Volume
40
Issue
8
Pages
1914-1918
ISSN
  • 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6596
OpenAlex
W1869062106
Cited by
721
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 26
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bristol-Myers Squibb
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Antibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Keywords
antimicrobial synergy, time-kill assay, checkerboard assay, E-test, fractional inhibitory concentration index, cefepime, ceftazidime, tobramycin, ciprofloxacin, Escherichia coli, Enterobacter cloacae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, measurement agreement
MeSH terms
Cefepime, Bacteria, Ceftazidime, Cephalosporins, Ciprofloxacin, Drug Synergism, Drug Therapy, Combination, Escherichia coli, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Tobramycin, Enterobacter cloacae

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