Cited by 309Tuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyMycobacterium research and diagnosisBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of the BACTEC radiometric method for recovery of mycobacteria and drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from acid-fast smear-positive specimens

Open access

Abstract

A total of 463 respiratory specimens, all smear positive for acid-fast bacteria, were inoculated onto routine solid media and into BACTEC 7H12 Middlebrook medium for detection of mycobacterial growth. Conventional drug susceptibility testing (1% proportion method) was performed on Middlebrook 7H10/7H11 medium, and radiometric susceptibility testing was performed on BACTEC 7H12 medium. The average detection times for BACTEC-positive cultures were 8.3 days for Mycobacterium tuberculosis and 5.2 days for mycobacteria other than tuberculosis; by conventional methods, they were 19.4 and 17.8 days, respectively. These detection times do not include time required for identification, which was done by the conventional method only. There was an excellent correlation in the recovery rates of mycobacteria by the two methods. Drug susceptibility test results of M. tuberculosis isolates by the two methods showed 95.1 to 100% overall agreement. The average reporting time for drug susceptibility results ranged from 4.2 to 6.9 days for the BACTEC method and 13.7 to 21 days for the conventional methods. An average of 18 days was required by the BACTEC method for complete recovery and drug susceptibility testing of M. tuberculosis, as compared with 38.5 days for the conventional methods.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.18.3.689-696.1983

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Roberts, G. D., Goodman, N. L., Heifets, L., Larsh, H. W., Lindner, T. H., McClatchy, J. K., McGinnis, M. R., Siddiqi, S. H., & Wright, P.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1983-09
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
689-696
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W1929711702
Cited by
309
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
10.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Mycobacterium research and diagnosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology (medical) › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
BACTEC, radiometric culture, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, drug susceptibility testing, proportion method, respiratory specimens
MeSH terms
Bacteriological Techniques, Drug Resistance, Microbial, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Mycobacterium, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Radiometry, Staining and Labeling

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of the BACTEC radiometric method for recovery of mycobacteria and drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from acid-fast smear-positive specimens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.18.3.689-696.1983
The paper
Roberts, G. D., Goodman, N. L., Heifets, L., Larsh, H. W., Lindner, T. H., McClatchy, J. K., McGinnis, M. R., Siddiqi, S. H., & Wright, P. (1983). Evaluation of the BACTEC radiometric method for recovery of mycobacteria and drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from acid-fast smear-positive specimens. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.18.3.689-696.1983