Comparison and Evaluation of Osiris and Sirscan 2000 Antimicrobial Susceptibility Systems in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory
Open accessAbstract
The Osiris and Sirscan 2000 systems are two semiautomated systems that can be used to read and interpret the results on disk diffusion agar plates. They are both used for determination of susceptibility to antimicrobial agents. The present study compared both systems versus the NCCLS standard method of visual reading with a ruler. Both inpatient and outpatient samples with a total of 315 nonfastidious gram-negative strains were obtained. In total, 3724 organism-antimicrobial agent combinations that fulfilled the NCCLS guidelines for disk diffusion susceptibility testing were evaluated prospectively. The results obtained with both systems in comparison with those obtained by the classical nonautomated means of interpretation were excellent, with correlation coefficients of 0.96 for both systems. The overall agreements for susceptibility interpretation were 96.56 and 96.24% with the Osiris and Sirscan systems, respectively. Very major errors were obtained for 8 (1.07%) and 10 (1.34%) organism-antimicrobial agent combinations with the Osiris and Sirscan systems, respectively. In addition, major errors were obtained for 2 (0.07%) and 6 (0.21%) combinations with the Osiris and Sirscan systems, respectively. Minor errors were obtained for 118 and 124 organism-antimicrobial agent combinations with the Osiris and Sirscan systems, respectively. Overall, both the Osiris system and the Sirscan system are comparable and reliable systems for determination of interpretative categories from…
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?
An approximate MIC can be calculated for some microorganisms and antibiotics by comparing inhibition zones with stored algorithms.
“Nevertheless, an approximate MIC can be calculated for some microorganisms and antibiotics by comparing the inhibition zones with stored algorithms [13].”
From Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review (2016) · cites this paper as [13]
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
- Authors
- Nijs, A., Cartuyvels, R., Mewis, A., Peeters, V., Rummens, J. L., & Magerman, K.
- Affiliations
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Virga Jesseziekenhuis, Stadsomvaart 11, B-3500 Hasselt, Belgium
- Corresponding author
- Magerman, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2003-08
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 3627-3630
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- PMC
- PMC179852
- OpenAlex
- W2143087972
- Cited by
- 74
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.38
- 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)
- Funders
- Sanofi Pasteur
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
- Keywords
- antimicrobial susceptibility testing, disk diffusion, semi-automated image analysis, NCCLS guidelines, method comparison
- MeSH terms
- Acinetobacter, Agar, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Automation, Bacillus, Bacteriological Techniques, Enterobacteriaceae, Escherichia coli, Gram-Negative Aerobic Bacteria, Klebsiella, Laboratories, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Proteus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Reproducibility of Results
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
