The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.
Quality control limits for ampicillin, carbenicillin, mezlocillin, and piperacillin disk diffusion susceptibility tests: a collaborative study
Open accessAbstract
A multilaboratory in vitro study was carried out to determine disk diffusion susceptibility testing quality control limits for two new semisynthetic penicillins, mezlocillin and piperacillin. Existing limits for carbenicillin and ampicillin were reevaluated. Multiple tests (which followed standards set by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards ASM-2 revised) were performed in nine laboratories by different technologists using disks and Mueller-Hinton agar from different manufacturers. Clinically significant differences between disks produced by different manufacturers were not noted. Inhibitory zone diameter measurements from all laboratories were analyzed, and upper and lower control limits were established by using the overall median +/-0.5 the median range of the individual laboratory measurements as determining parameters. Close agreement of the data in this study with the results of national proficiency testing and quality control programs for ampicillin and carbenicillin supports the validity of our approach to making initial recommendations for quality control guidelines for new antimicrobial agents.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
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).”
Citations
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
- Gavan, T. L., Jones, R. N., Barry, A. L., Fuchs, P. C., Gerlach, E. H., Matsen, J. M., Reller, L. B., Thornsberry, C., & Thrupp, L. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1981-07
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 67-72
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- PMC
- PMC271903
- OpenAlex
- W1953742063
- Cited by
- 97
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 7.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology (medical) › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Antibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
- Keywords
- quality control limits, disk diffusion susceptibility testing, ampicillin, carbenicillin, mezlocillin, piperacillin, semisynthetic penicillins, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, Mueller-Hinton agar, proficiency testing
- MeSH terms
- Ampicillin, Carbenicillin, Escherichia coli, Mezlocillin, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Penicillins, Piperacillin, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Quality Control, Staphylococcus aureus
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
