Skip to main content

Table 2 MIC concordance of different assays compared to the reference BMD method

From: Colistin resistance in Gram-negative bacteria analysed by five phenotypic assays and inference of the underlying genomic mechanisms

Method

BMD

Vitek 2®

UMIC

Colistin E-test MIC strip

Specie

No. Isolates tested

No. Isolates tested

No. of concordant isolates [%]a

No. Isolates tested

No. of concordant isolates [%]a

No. Isolates tested

No. of concordant isolates [%]a

Acinetobacter spp.

7

4

4 [100.0]

7

7 [100.0]

7

6 [85.7]

C. koseri

3

3

3 [100.0]

3

2 [66.7]

3

2 [66.7]

K. aerogenes

2

2

1 [50.0]

2

1 [50.0]

2

2 [100.0]

E. cloacae

5

5

3 [60.0]

5

5 [100.0]

5

3 [60.0]

E. coli

24

24

17 [70.8]

24

19 [79.2]

24

13 [54.2]

Hafnia spp.

15

15

14 [93.3]

15

14 [93.3]

15

13 [86.7]

K. oxytoca

3

3

1 [33.3]

3

3 [100.0]

3

1 [33.3]

K. pneumoniae

20

19

16 [84.2]

20

17 [85.0]

20

13 [65.0]

P. aeruginosa

10

8

7 [87.5]

10

10 [100.0]

10

8 [80.0]

Total

97

91

66 [72.5]

97

78 [80.4]

97

61 [62.9]

  1. BMD Broth microdilution method
  2. aConcordance was considered as the same MIC value or as one titre difference to that of the reference value obtained by BMD