Analysis and presentation of cumulative antibiograms: A new consensus guideline from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Volumn 44, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 867-873

  Handler, Janet F ^a   Stelling, John ^b  

^a UCLA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CIPROFLOXACIN; CLINDAMYCIN; ERYTHROMYCIN; GENTAMICIN; OXACILLIN; PENICILLIN G; VANCOMYCIN;

ALGORITHM; ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY; BACTERIUM ISOLATE; ENTEROCOCCUS FAECIUM; INFECTION CONTROL; LABORATORY TEST; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA; REVIEW; STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS;

ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; DRUG RESISTANCE, BACTERIAL; FEMALE; GRAM-NEGATIVE BACTERIA; GRAM-POSITIVE BACTERIA; HUMANS; INFECTION CONTROL; LABORATORIES, HOSPITAL; MALE; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPECIMEN HANDLING; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33847676508     PISSN: 10584838     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/511864     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Bax R, Bywater R, Cornaglia G, et al. Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance: what, how and whither? Clin Microbiol Infect 2001; 7:316-25.
2. Critchley IA, Karlowsky JA. Optimal use of antibiotic resistance surveillance systems. Clin Microbiol Infect 2004; 10:502-11.
3. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Analysis and presentation of cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility test data. 2nd ed. Approved guideline M39-A2. Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2006.
4. World Health Organization. WHONET software. 2006. Available at: http://www.who.int/drugresistance/whonetsoftware. Accessed 5 February 2007.
5. Horvat RT, Klutman NE, Lacy MK, Grauer D, Wilson M. Effect of duplicate isolates of methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on antibiogram data. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41:4611-6.
6. Bosso JA, Mauldin PD, Steed LL. Consequences of combining cystic fibrosis- and non-cystic fibrosis-derived Pseudomonas aeruginosa antibiotic susceptibility results in hospital antibiograms. Ann Pharmacother 2006; 40:1946-9.
7. Cebrian L, Rodriguez JC, Escribano I, Cascales E, Lopez-Lozano JM, Royo G. Influence of various criteria for elimination of duplicates when calculating the prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility of microorganisms associated with urinary infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005;25:173-6.
8. Magee JT. Effects of duplicate and screening isolates on surveillance of community and hospital antibiotic resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004;54:155-62.
9. Rodriguez JC, Sirvent E, Lopez-Lozano JM, Royo G. Criteria of time and antibiotic susceptibility in the elimination of duplicates when calculating resistance frequencies. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52:132-4.
10. Shannon KP, French GL. Antibiotic resistance: effect of different criteria for classifying isolates as duplicates on apparent resistance frequencies. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 49:201-4.
11. White RL, Friedrich LV, Burgess DS, Brown EW, Scott LE. Effect of removal of duplicate isolates on cumulative susceptibility reports. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2001; 39:251-6.
12. College of American Pathologists, Commission on Laboratory Accreditation. Microbiology checklist. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists, 2006. Available at: http://www.cap.org. Accessed 5 February 2007.
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevent antimicrobial resistance in healthcare settings. 2006. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/healthcare. Accessed 5 February 2007.
14. Missouri Department of Health. Laboratory reporting. 19 CSR 20-20.080(4). 2004.
15. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Web site. Available at: http://www.clsi.org. Accessed 5 February 2007.
16. Gupta K, Hooton TM, Stamm WE. Increasing antimicrobial resistance and the management of uncomplicated community-acquired urinary tract infections. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:41-50.
17. Le TP, Miller LG. Empirical therapy for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance: a decision and cost analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33:615-21.
18. Tramarin A, Bragagnolo L, Tolley K, et al. The application of cost effectiveness analysis to derive a formulary for urinary tract infections. J Chemother 2002; 14:166-74.
19. Solomkin JS, Bjornson HS, Cainzos M, et al. A consensus statement on empiric therapy for suspected gram-positive infections in surgical patients. Am J Surg 2004; 187:134-45.